The cost of the car after 5 years from then, will be $15652.99.
Given here, the depreciation every year(r) 7% or 0.07per year, asset cost (of the car) is $22,500 and time period (n) is 5 years.
The value after 5 years can be calculated as,
Depreciated value = asset cost ×(1-r) n
= 22500 × (1-0.07) 5
= 15652.99$.
Thus, the car worths 15652.99$ after 5 years.
The worth of an asset after its useful life is expired, as it is diminished over time by depreciation, is its depreciated cost. The asset’s worth is continuously diminished by figuring out how much it will cost to depreciate it, but the depreciated cost technique always permits accounting records to represent an item at its current value.
Depreciation is an accounting technique for spreading out the expense of a tangible item over the course of its useful life.
To learn more about Depreciation, refer this link.
brainly.com/question/24218291
#SPJ4
Answer:
$14,000 should be invested in the 4.25% bond.
Explanation:
Let's assume
Investment in bond with a coupon rate of 4.25% = x
Investment in bond with a coupon rate of 7.75% = y
According to given condition
x + y = $42,000 (i)
4.25%x + 7.75%y = $2,765
or
0.0425x + 0.0775y = $2,765 (ii)
Multiplying the equiation (i) by 0.0425
0.0425x + 0.0425y = $1,785 (iii)
Subtracting equation (iii) from equation (ii)
0.0425x + 0.0775y = $2,765
<u>-0.0425x - 0.0425y = -$1,785</u>
0 + 0.0350y = $980
0.0350y = $980
y = $980 / 0.0350
y = $28,000
Placing valye of y in equiation (i)
x + $28,000 = $42,000
x = $42,000 - $28,000
x = $14,000
Hence
Investment in bond with a coupon rate of 4.25% = x = $14,000
Answer:
The principle in Law 'Nemo dat quod non habet' states that an individual connot give what he does not have
Indeed Tom can rescind the contract with Matthew as he possesses voidable title to the balls
Explanation:
Until consideration has moved from Matthew to Tom the validity of the agreement/Contract remains inconclusive.
Considering his Account is not funded means he has no valid title to the Balls, he is merely in possession of the Balls but not the Owner.
Tom can sue demanding a return of the Balls irrespective of Matthew having sold them to Aaron.
Another illustration could be given of a thief who sells off a property. Inspite of the Buyer being unaware, because the thief has a voidable title it makes the transaction invalid.
