Answer:
The correct answer is Duty of loyalty.
Explanation:
The corporate sphere bears an important analogy with the contractual one, in the sense that in both the agreements of the parties and the provisions of the law must be fulfilled, that is, there is a duty of loyalty of the partners and a duty of loyalty of the administrators. However, any action carried out by a subject, over and above private covenants or regulatory provisions, must follow a standard of conduct that imposes a certain ethical behavior in legal relationships, that of good faith.
Therefore, and without delving into the normative level, noting that behaving under the strict principle of good faith with society would be the partner's main duty. Here it is possible to know the concrete scope of this principle as a source of special duties for the parties in the corporate sphere. Thus, a duty-generating principle is derived from it: cooperation, information and protection.
Answer:
(b) After-closing balance in the Retained Earnings account on December 31, Year 1,
Total Stockholder's equity = Total assets - Total liabilities
= $220,000 - $66,000
= $154,000
After-closing balance of Retained Earnings = Total Stockholder's equity - Common stock
= $154,000 - $110,000
= $44,000
(a) Before-closing balance in the Retained Earnings account on December 31, Year 1.
Net Income = Revenue - Expenses
= $40,000 - $23,000
= $17,000
Before-closing balance of Retained Earnings:
= After-closing balance of Retained Earnings + Dividend paid - Net Income
= $44,000 + $3,200 - $17,000
= $30,200
(c) Before-closing balances in the following accounts:
Revenue = $40,000
Expenses = $23,000
Dividend = $3,200
(d) After-closing balances in the following accounts:
Revenue = $0
Expenses = $0
Dividend = $0
Because revenue and expenses are transferred to income statement and dividend are transferred to retained earnings.
Answer:
The correct answer is letter "A": entrepreneurs.
Explanation:
Entrepreneurship is the factor of Human Resources (HR) by which representatives are in charge of coordinating with different departments on how to allocate labor force to achieve the business operations effectively. In some cases, some policy decisions and risks will have to be taken by them.
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
