Is known as multiple- unit pricing.
Answer:
(C) Decrease No effect
Explanation:
at purchase:
30,000 shares x 16 dollars each:
Treasury stock 480,000 debit
Cash 480,000 credit
--purchase of own share--
Then we will decrease retained earnings for the difference in the cash proceed on the sale and our treasury stock.
30,000 x 12 dollars = 360,000 cash proceeds
treasury stock 480,000
decrease in RE 120,000
cash 360,000 debit
retained earnings 120,000 debit
Treasury Stock 480,000 credit
Answer: Martha does not have a dominant strategy
Explanation:
A dominant strategy is one that a player can embark on and get the highest payoff regardless of the actions of their competitor.
In this scenario, there is no strategy that Martha can embark on that would provide the greatest payout regardless of Oleg's decision. If Martha advertises, Oleg makes the same amount advertising as well. If Martha does not advertise, Oleg would decide not to advertise as well and make the same amount.
Martha therefore has no dominant strategy as Oleg would make the same amount regardless of which decision is taken.
Answer: You need to subtract the following then add what you have left.
Explanation: For example if you had $300 and you spent 200 you have $100 left
Answer:
D) Both the landowner and the attorney.
Explanation:
The bank will succeed in obtaining a judgement against both the former landowner and the attorney. The bank can sue either of them or both of them, but it can only collect the $5,000 once.
- When the attorney assumed the mortgage, he expressly promised to pay it. The lender becomes a third party beneficiary of the attorney's promise to pay and can sue him if the mortgage isn't paid.
- The former landowner became secondarily liable to the lender in case the attorney didn't pay.
