Answer:
The monetary value is $24,201.23
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Cash flows:
Year 1= $6,800
Year 2= 6,800
Year 3= 6,800
Year 4= $15,000.
The discount rate is 15 percent.
We need to discount each cash flow to the present value:
PV= FV/(1+i)^n
Year 1= 6,800/1.15= 5,913.04
Year 2= 6,800/1.15^2= 5,141.78
Year 3= 6,800/1.15^3= 4,471.11
Year 4= 15,000/ 1.15^4= 8,576.30
Total= $24,201.23
Answer:
The correct word for the blank space is: Revised Model Business Corporation Act.
Explanation:
The United States corporate laws are regulated by the Model Business Corporation Act (MBCA). The Act was born as a need for disambiguation of liabilities incurred by corporations where it was not clear if owners were personally liable for debts of the organization. Nowadays, the Revised Model Business Corporation Act (RMBCA) rules that concept and adopted some other features to bring clarity when it comes to corporate obligations.
Answer:
$21,080.2
Explanation:
The price of the car will be the down-payment plus the future value of 375 paid each month for 5 years compounded monthly at 9.72%.
The formula for calculating future value is
PV = P × 1 − (1+r)−n
r
PV is $350
r is 9.72 % or 0.0972 % per year or 0.0081
t is five year or 60 months
FV = 350 x (1-(1+0.0081)-60
0.0081
Fv =350 x 1-0.61628715419
0.0081
FV =350 x( 0.38371284581/0.00810
FV =350 x 47.371956
FV =16,580.20
The value of the car = $4500 + 16,580.20
=$21,080.2
Answer:
Letter A is correct.<em> Complementary product pricing.</em>
Explanation:
Organizations use the strategy of adopting a complementary product pricing to increase the total profit of a product group.
This strategy is used when the company sells products that are complementary, ie the use of one is complemented by the use of the other, so the company substantially decreases the price of a product, usually just to cover costs, and guarantees gains from a product with a high price and very high profit margin.
The benefits added to the complementary price of a product are market gain, competitors' entry barriers and retention and attraction of new consumers.
The cengage learning for the mitigation is the difference between the agreed upon $72000 less what was earned from the $25000 position that barton managed to obtain
<u>Explanation</u>:
Mitigation of damages:
In the case of barton v. vanhorn a court would consider barton's attempts at findings similar employment a reasonable step in mitigating her damages.
Under the doctrine of damage mitigation, a wrongfully terminated employee must look for other compartable employment, and subtract whatever you make from that job from what you request in damages.
Damages in the case would be the difference between the agreed upon $72000 less what was earned from the $25000 position that barton managed to obtain.