Answer:
break even point in units = 2,667
break even point in $ = $33,338
Explanation:
The break even point marks the point where a company is able to cover all its expenses. At this point the company is not losing money, but it is not making a profit either.
break even point in units = total fixed costs / contribution margin
- total fixed costs = $10,000
- contribution margin = $12.50 - ($4 + $4.75) = $12.50 - $8.75 = $3.75
break even point in units = $10,000 / $3.75 = 2,666.67 ≈ 2,667 units
break even point in $ = 2,667 units x $12.50 per unit = $33,337.50 ≈ $33,338
Answer:
Rate of change of rent [Seattle] = $95.5
Explanation:
Given:
2009 Rent $583
2015 Rent $745
2009 Boston $1,577
2015 Boston $2,150
2009 Seattle $958
2015 Seattle $1,600
Find:
Rate of change of rent [Seattle]
Computation:
Rate of change of rent [Seattle] = Change in price / Change in time
Rate of change of rent [Seattle] = [$2,150 - $1,577] / [2015 - 2009]
Rate of change of rent [Seattle] = $573 / 6
Rate of change of rent [Seattle] = $95.5
Answer:
The right answer is:
(a) 5916 units
(b) 5046 units
Explanation:
Given:
Sales,
= $59
Variable cost,
= $30
Fixed cost,
= $171,564
Increased sale,
= $64
Now,
(a)
Contribution margin will be:
= 
= 
= 
($)
hence,
Breakeven will be:
= 
= 
= 
(b)
Contribution margin will be:
= 
= 
= 
($)
hence,
Breakeven will be:
=
= 
= 
Answer:
The equal opportunity laws of another country, not the United States is discussed below in details.
Explanation:
An equal opportunity system is a certificate that declares what measures a company takes to eliminate and stop discrimination in the workplace.
The United Kingdom employment equality law is an organization of law that legislates against prejudice-based activities in the workplace.
The prime legislation is the Equality Act 2010, which condemns discrimination in passage to education, government services, private services, and goods, or assumptions in addition to employment.
Answer and Explanation:
In the given case, the second will would be destroyed non-intentionally by the testatrix that represent the person who writes the will. Also the second will would have be intended to revoke the first will
In addition to this, Testatrix intends the second will to be value also at the same time she dont want the first will to be probated
So the second will would be upheld because of testamentary motive.
