Answer:
Yes, the court should enforce Maybelline's promise since Ruben relied on it. Maybelline offered Ruben the money not once, but twice, so Ruben had sufficient reasons to believe that she would fulfill her promise. Ruben suffered since she didn't fulfill her promise, so the court should rule in his favor.
Answer:
NPV = $262,604.7
Explanation:
<em>The NPV is the difference between the PV of cash inflows and the PV of cash outflows. A positive NPV implies a good investment decision and a negative figure implies the opposite.
</em>
NPV of an investment:
NPV = PV of Cash inflows - PV of cash outflow
PV of annuity= 1 -(1+r)^(-n)/r × Annual cash flow
r- discount rate, n- number of years
PV of cashinflow = 133,000 × (1- 1.13^(-4))/0.13 =395,604.6863
NPV = 395,604.6863 - 133,000= 262,604.7
NPV = $262,604.7
The answer to this question is <span>Wherewithal to pay
In the wherewithal to pay concept, the</span><span> Income will be recognized in the period in which the company has the means to </span>pay<span> the tax on the income. Often times, company make their report to show a loss on purpose in order to postpone the tax payments</span>
Answer: $25000
Explanation:
From the question, we are informed that Betty made a 20% profit on a residential lot she sold for $30,000. Let the cost price of the property be represented by x.
Therefore, (100% + 20%) of x = $30000. This means that 120% of x = $30000.
120% × x = $30000
1.2x = $30000
x = $30000/1.2
x = $25000
Therefore, the amount paid for the property is $25000
Answer:
The answer is "Option A".
Explanation:
In this question, the first choice is correct because the Chilean organizations continue to improve the existing wine business in the country of China, with Chile aiming to the advantage of the military conflict as well as expand its position in the Chinese beverage (wine) market though the wider optimization.