784.967 rounded to the nearest whole number is 785
Answer:
The answer is NO.
Explanation:
The answer is NO since the tax cut does not equate or rather would not be an effective stimulus due to the fact that debt reduction would not stimulate or increase consumption.
To properly understand the narrative of the question and the answer herein, let us define what effective stimulus is.
Effective stimulus or as preferably known as An economic stimulus is the utilization of funds or design of that helps agitate growth during downtime or recession in a country. The decision makers of a country mostly utilize the tactics of giving rebates and increasing government expenses to name a few.
Now relating it back to the question, since the intention of the rebate is to ease payment on tax does not equate to increase in consumption, the answer is a NO.
Answer:
Who is the franchisor? McDonald's
Who is the franchisee? C.B. Management Inc.
In a franchise relationship, the <u>franchisee</u> is economically dependent on the <u>franchisor's</u> business system.
The franchise relationship is defined by the <u>contract</u>.
Did C.B. Management, Inc.’s failure to make a payment due more than thirty days earlier constitute a breach of the franchise contract? YES
Why? A) the contract provided McDonald's could terminate the contract when a payment was more than 30 days late.
Did the contract provide that the acceptance of a late payment waived McDonald's right to terminate for late payments? NO
What does an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing require? That the parties act <u>reasonably</u>.
Did McDonald's act of accepting late payments in the past transform McDonald's right to terminate into a discretionary decision governed by the standard of good faith and fair dealing in the future? NO
Why? Which one of these reasons is not correct? B) the actions of the parties control this issue.
A court would likely find for <u>McDonald’s</u>
Answer:
1) You get what you get and don't throw a fit?
2)Be patient???
I hope this helps TwT
Answer:
A. -$5,000 and .95:1
Explanation:
Working capital = Current Assets - Current Liabilities
Provided current assets = $95,000
Current Liabilities = $100,000
Working capital = $95,000 - $100,000 = - $5,000
Current Ratio = 
Therefore, Current Ratio = 
Here working capital is negative $5,000
Current Ratio = 0.95 : 1
Final Answer
A. -$5,000 and .95:1
