Answer and Explanation:
Since in the given situation it is mentioned that McPherson Corp has not done any physical count of inventory but rather it do weekly test counts based on statistical plan also such counts would be considered for satisfying herself so here the reporting would be that Mullins would have to submit an unqualified opinion as she is content with the client producers and considered them reliable & accurate
Answer:
b. The minimum point on the average total cost curve
Explanation:
the marginal cost is the cost of making or producing one more additional unit of a product and then average total cost is the average of the total cost to produce units so if both these curves intersect then that means that will be the minimum point on the average total cost curve because at a point where if the marginal cost is less than the average cost then the average total cost will fall so the intersection point shows where the average total cost is a minimum because if its above that point the average total cost will rise.
Answer:
Return on equity = 13.5 %
Explanation:
given data
tax burden ratio = 0.75
interest burden = 0.6
leverage ratio = 1.25
return on sales = 10%
sales assets = $2.40
to find out
What is the firm's ROE
solution
we get here Return on equity (ROE) that is express as
Return on equity = tax burden ratio ×leverage ratio × interest burden ratio × return on sale × sales .......................1
put here value we get
Return on equity = 0.75 × 1.25 × 0.6 × 10% × 2.40
Return on equity = 0.75 × 1.25 × 0.6 × 0.10 × 2.40
Return on equity = 0.135
Return on equity = 13.5 %
Answer:
$62,900
Explanation:
According to the situation, the solution is as follows
The prime cost is
= Raw material + direct labor
= $39,700 + $23,200
= $62,900
It is a combination of both the raw material and direct labor therefore calculating it we simply added the raw material and direct labor in order to determine the prime cost incurred during the month
Answer:
See explanation below.
Explanation: At common law, minors are allowed to enter into contracts, never minding their provisions. The validity of the contract and its' individual provisions themselves, may or may not be enforceable depending on many other factors.
Therefore, exculpatory clauses are generally not favored by courts and when they are upheld, they are construed strictly against those attempting to invoke them.
Beaver attempted to disaffirm the contract in what is assumed to be a reasonable time by her action of filing suit against the operator. However, most states only permit a minor to disaffirm a contract in its' entirety.
some courts refuse to allow minors to disaffirm fully performed contracts unless they can return all consideration received; and some courts permit disaffirmance but subject the minor to tort liability for his or her misrepresentation.
Also, the court could conclude that Beaver did in fact implicitly accept its terms. However, when a minor enters into a contract, she or he may only accept the terms of the previously unenforceable contract if they do so within a reasonable time after they reach the age of majority. Beaver's filing of a lawsuit against the operator likely constitutes an action intending to implicitly disaffirm the terms, the absence of which is required to affirm a contract by a minor.
