Answer:
sunk cost.
Explanation:
Sunk cost can be defined as a cost or an amount of money that has been spent on something in the past and as such cannot be recovered. Thus, because a sunk cost has been incurred by an individual or organization it can't be recovered and as such it is irrelevant in the decision-making process such as investments, projects etc.
Basically, sunk costs are referred to as fixed costs.
Sunk costs are the opposite of relevant costs because they can't be changed or recovered, as they've been spent or contracted in the past already. Hence, relevant cost are relevant for decision-making purposes but not sunk costs.
Hence, a cost incurred in the past that is not relevant to any current decision is classified as a sunk cost.
For example, ABC investors decide to acquire land and develop residential houses at a location X. This decision is informed on the fact that the government had recently enacted a policy that led to an increase in demand for residential properties in that location. 6 months into construction of the residential houses, the government reviews and rescinds the policy. This leads to a sharp decline in property values in location X. ABC investors had already incurred 10 million dollars in the project. The 10 million dollars is considered sunk cost.
Answer:
Bottom-up.
Explanation:
Bottom-up budgeting is a budgeting method that starts at the department level to the top level. Each department within the organization is required to compile a list of the things it needs, the projects it plans to carry out in the next financial period, and the cost estimates.
Answer:
The economic cost for Debbie is 6,200 after considering the implicit cost.
Explanation:
The economic cost for Debbie's will be the explicit cost and opportunity cost of the best rejected opportunity.
Explicit cost: 2,200 print and develop
Opportunity Cost: 4,000 normal wedding revenue
Total Cost: 6,200
Explanation:
why is this so much who assigned you this
Answer: a. It merely conducted some activity outside of Alaska and that activity took place through a website.
Explanation:
CalmDown can use the defence that all it did was to conduct an activity through it's website and this happened to be outside Alaska.
As such the company is still bound by the state that it is registered in which in this case would seem to be in Alaska. They are not to be bound by the laws of another jurisdiction from the one they are registered to if the activity was done on the internet.
Marcus should therefore try to bring action against them in Alaska if he can.
