Answer:
20 cents
Explanation:
The marginal cost refers to the cost of an extra unit. In this case, if she decides to purchase two tacos and a medium drink, she would spend $2.30. The difference between this option and the value meal, that contains three tacos and a medium drink, is 20 cents. The marginal cost of purchasing the third taco if she takes the second option would be 20 cents. If she decides to buy the tacos and the drink for apart, the marginal cost or extra unit cost would be 75 cents.
Answer:
C, the board of directors of IFS
Explanation:
The board of the IFS is ultimately responsible for the corporate climate that resulted in the use of substandard ingredients in the meals meant for the troops.
This is because the directors are the ones at the helm of affairs and they decide what happens in the IFS. This means that at least one of the directors is aware of the use of substandard ingredients . It can be said that if one knows, all other know. This phrase convieniently indicts the directors.
Cheers.
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.
Answer:
$284,000
Explanation:
ABC Corporation
Consolidate Income Statement
For the year ended, 31 December, 20XX
Particulars ABC XYZ
Sales $500,000 320,000
Less: Expenses <u>$(280,000) $(240,000)</u>
Net Income $220,000 $80,000
Consolidated Income for the year under the proprietary theory approach for ABC corporation = $220,000 + (80,000 × 80%) = $220,000 + 64,000
= $284,000
According to the proprietary theory approach, the wholly-owned company will get the same percentage it owns the proportionate of that subsidiary company or companies.
True I think I am not 100% sure
