Answer:
Situation 1 is a probably contingency. This recall is occurring and can be estimated as costing $2 million. This amount should be charge to the warranties payable and warranties expense accounts.
Date
Particulars
Ref.no
Debit $
Credit $
Warrantee expenses
20,00,000
Warranty payable account
20,00,000
[To record the estimated claims]
Comment
Step 3 of 3
Situation 2 is a reasonable contingency. The costs are possible and there are rough estimates for cleanup but there are also rough estimates about reimbursements for property damage. This situation would be disclosed on the balance sheet.
Situation 3 is a remote contingency. There is a small change that there could be property damage but there is no way to determine how much or what the costs could be. There is no amount marked down for this situation
Explanation:
Answer:
firm must borrow $288000 to achieve the target debt ratio
Explanation:
given data
assets = $720,000
debt to total capital ratio = 40%
to find out
How much must the firm borrow to achieve the target debt ratio
solution
we get here debt here by Debt to Total capital ratio that is express as
Debt to Total capital ratio = Debt ÷ ( Debt + Equity ) ....................1
put here value we get debt
0.40 = 
debt = $288000
so firm must borrow $288000 to achieve the target debt ratio
Answer:
Explanation:
The journal entry is shown below:
On September 30
Bonds payable A/c Dr $1,000,000
Loss on bond retirement A/c Dr $20,000
To Discount on Bond A/c $10,000
To Cash A/c $1,010,000
(Being the callable bond is recorded)
The computation is shown below:
For cash
= Par value of bond + Premium
= $1,000,000 + $10,000
= $1,010,000
For Loss, it would be
= $1,010,000 - $990,000
= $20,000
And, the remaining amount would be transferred to discount on bond
Answer:
The correct answer is A. In Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court ruled that an employer may not simply disregard a test based on unwanted results unless the test is shown to be biased or deficient.
Explanation:
Ricci v. DeStefano is a Supreme Court ruling of 2009, after a lawsuit by nineteen firefighters who claimed to have been discriminated against in terms of career development. They denounced that they had been discriminated after having passed the admission tests and still had not been promoted, since no African-American candidate had passed the tests. They also denounced that they had not been promoted because the Fire Department did not want to promote a group of new recruits without including within it any member of racial minorities.
Finally, the Supreme Court established that said procedure violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since in the case equal access to employment was not guaranteed (in this case, favoring minorities over white firefighters), for set different demands for purely racial reasons.
