Three of the most important questions he needs to ask are the following: 1. Are you making a big purchase? This is important because the bigger the pruchase the better attention he needs to have into interest rates. 2. <span> How are you paying off your card balance?</span> the payment can be in one payment or in different ones. And 3. <span> Would you like free bonuses with your purchase? some credits offer that some others not. It is very important to have that in mind</span>
Answer:
a. Asset Turnover 20Y3
= Sales / Average assets
= 2,385,000 / [ (770,000 + 820,000) / 2]
= 2,385,000 / 795,000
= 3.0
Asset Turnover 20Y2
= 2,015,500 / [ (620,000 + 770,000) / 2]
= 2,015,500 / 695,000
= 2.9
b. The change is Favorable because it means that the assets are bringing in more sales per dollar value of assets to the company.
According to the enotes, SA800 certification focuses on social responsibility in the work place.
Answer:
Cream $560
Explanation:
Units Selling price Sales value Percentage of sales value Allocated cost
Cream200 15 3,000 3,000/5,400 = 56% 1,000 x 56% = $560
Skimmed
milk600 4 2,400 2,400/5,400 = 44% 1,000 x 44% = $440
Total $5,400 100% $1,000
Therefore the amount of joint cost allocated to cream is $560
Answer:
This is an actual court case where the Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled in favor of Cox Communications in February, 2014.
The court ruled that Ovalles was an employee for M&M, and that M&M had an independent contractor relationship with Cox Communications. Additionally, Ovalles was also an independent contractor for M&M, not an employee. There existed no direct relationnship between Cox and Ovalles.
Even though Ovalles and other independent contractors use both Cox's and M&M's logos on their vans and uniforms, this was done so consumers could identify them. The fact that an identification is needed so customers can determine the function of a technician, doesn't imply that those technicians are actually employees of the firm nor they actually a method of control over the technicians.
Since Cox didn't control the performance of Ovalles and didn't have contact with him, then there was no reason to consider him an employee of Cox.
The plaintiff, Barbara Cayer probably made a mistake when it included Cox in the lawsuit (since it is a large company), and she would have had a better case against M&M because that company did have control over Ovalles's performance and did have contact with him. But since M&M was a much smaller firm, they decided to go after the big fish. Later they tried to include M&M into the lawsuit but it was rejected since the Supreme Court had not made their ruling yet.