Answer:
income - expenses
Explanation:
net income is an entity's income minus all the expenses, taxes etc and net worth is the total wealth own by individual minus expenses.
Answer:
Total assets is increased by $18,100
Explanation:
The computation is shown below:
= Cash received from the issue of stock + revenue earned on account - cash paid for operating expenses
= $15,000 + $8,500 - $5,400
= $18,400
This positive amount shows that there is an increase in the total assets for $18,100
The cash collected from the account receivable is not relevant. Hence ignored it
Answer:
Snsnnsns
Explanation:
Sans Yshhsnhhhshhnshhhjujusjuujejuujujijji
Answer:
$76,000
Explanation:
If we are going to prepare a flexible budget we need to calculate how much Seaworthy should have spent in labor costs in order to produce 2,000 units:
labor cost = 2 hours per unit x $19 per hour x 2,000 units = $76,000
If we compare the flexible budget to Seaworthy's actual costs, we will find an unfavorable variance of $250,000 (=$326,000 - $76,000). Obviously something went wrong with Seaworthy's production.
Answer:
An contract is an understanding agreement that can be implemented in court it is a shaped by two or more gatherings who consent to perform or to cease from playing out some demonstration now or later on . The target hypothesis of agreements not by the individual or subjective aim or conviction of a gathering .The hypothesis is that gathering's expectation to go into an agreement is judged by outward destinations truths as deciphered by a sensible individual ,as opposed to by the gathering's mystery subjective aims . the essential components of a substantial contract and the path in which an agreement is made. The agreements that fall under this circumstance would be the agreement of arrangement contract of development ,contract of execution and the agreement of enforceability. The main contract would be the agreement of arrangement .They are contracts that are grouped in light of how when an agreement of development .
In the event that Ed had constantly paid for all the earlier pieces of candy, there gives off an impression of being suggested in actuality contract taking into account the earlier course of dealings amongst Ed and Fran.
Waving the sweet treat at Fran can be seen as an affirmation that Ed was not surreptitiously taking the piece of candy, but rather was demonstrating that he would get her the cash for that one later. His questionable signal in light of the gatherings earlier course of managing could sensibly be translated by Fran as a nonverbal IOU at the cost of that 1 piece of candy.There can likewise be an inferred in law contract taking into account the same certainties since to not force a suggested in law guarantee to pay results in the uncalled for improvement of Ed at the expense of Fran.Either sort of inferred contract is enforceable in Court.
