Answer:
Instructios are listed below.
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Laptops:
Selling price= $1,600
Cost per unit= $800
Sale mix= 40%
Tablets:
Selling price= $850
Cost per unit= $350
Sale mix= 60%
The estimated fixed costs for the current year are $2,498,600
A) Break-even point (units)= Total fixed costs / (weighted average selling price - weighted average variable expense)
Weighted average selling price= (1600*0.40) + (850*0.60)= $1,150
Weighted average variable expense= (800*0.40) + (350*0.60)= 530
Break-even point (units)= 2,498,600 / (1150 - 530)= 4,030 units
B) Laptops= 4030*0.40= 1,612 units
Tablets= 4030*0.60= 2,418 units
I think it is false hopefully it is right
d cause think about your trying to save money so your going to increase the discount rate so they will come and get more and your saving more money
hope I could help
<u>Solution and Explanation:</u>
A court assumes that the written cntarct is the begining and the end of all the terms of the agreement and will not acept the parol evidence if it changes the meaning of the terms of contract.
Parol evidence should only be used to determine the inetntions of the parties at the time the contract was made, not after the fact.
Valid contract: The elemenst of valid contract must be seen.
Since Mrs B signed a contract with the specific terms that did not include a bonus, a court would not consider an oral agreement based on completing a yet to be written contract under the parol evidence rule.
hence, Mrs B cannot introduce the oral agreement under the parol evidence rule.
Answer:
1. Recording
2. Authorization
Explanation:
Based on the scenario described above, it can be concluded that the control issue, in this case, arose because the Director had both RECORDING and AUTHORIZING duties.
This is because, for the Director of Information Technology for the city of Tampa, Florida not to have been convicted by a jury regardless of what she did, she must have followed the Segregation of Duties accordingly. This is a means of reducing the errors or fraudulent activities of employees.
And given she has a RECORD of transactions to prove her innocence and at the same time, she has AUTHORIZATION or the approval to supply the software, and hence, she is not guilty of the accusation.
