Risk pooling allows an insurance carrier to provide an income stream via an immediate annuity, even with its costs and expenses, far more cheaply than a person could on his or her own. Risk pooling is the practice of sharing all risks among a group of insurance companies.
Answer:
D
Explanation:
A estratégia de colheita, mais comumente chamada de estratégia de saída, é a forma como um empreendedor ou investidor tenta extrair o seu dinheiro de um negócio depois de ter se tornado bem sucedido.
Answer:
Explanation:
The adjusting entry is shown below:
Office supplies expense A/c Dr $257
To Office supplies $257
(Being adjusted entry recorded in respect of office supplies)
Since in the question it is given that, the debit balance of office supply is $363 and the physical count show $107 unused supplies which mean it is of no use. So, the actual amount of office supplies would be calculated by applying an equation which is shown below:
= Office supplies debit balance - unused office supplies
= $363 - $107
= $257
Moreover, the office supply is shown in the balance sheet under the assets account. And, to find out the correct value of the office supply we debit the expense account and credit the asset account.
Answer:
This is a situation arising from objective impossibility.
Explanation:
The contract was made for mint condition of car. The car damaged while it was with Frank. Thus, parties are thus discharged from their obligations under the contract.
Answer:
<em>Ratification by Principal One of the criteria for enactment is that all material truths involved in the transaction must be known to the Principal. Van Stavern was not aware of Hash's behaviour. </em>
He did not realize that somehow the steel is being shipped under his name, and that the shipments were being billed him directly. Unlike liability through obvious authority, approval by the principal is a positive act by which he or she acknowledges the agent's illegal actions.
Just a principal would ratify; thus, Van Stavern was not directly imputed to information by the invoices and checks signed by Van Stavern's workers.
The court stated that the use of corporate checks was further proof that Van Stavern regarded the expenditures as business, not private. So Van Stavern could not be held personally liable.
Remember that on Sutton Steel that's not excessively harsh. Sutton understood it was working with a building company and did not seek to get the personal approval of the contract from Van Stavern.
<em>Lawfully, Sutton's agreement in this case is called an unaccepted offer which can be withdrawn at any time.</em>
<em></em>
