Answer:
Option A. Liable, because notice to Emmett is notice to Fridley.
Explanation:
The reason is that the principle is liable for the outcome of the Emmett actions in the principle's behalf. So it is clear that Fridley is liable. The agent have to work in the best interest of its principal which means that the failure to notify the additional tax liability to Fridley was part of agent's fiduciary duty. This means that the principle can sue its agent for the consequences of not placing the sufficient care to its principle.
The Fridley is also responsible because Emmett is acting as Fridley which means the notice to Emmett is actually notice to Fridley.
Answer: $54,000 per production run
Explanation:
As we are dealing with the decision of whether or not to process the good further, the irrelevant cost would be the cost of producing product B from input R.
This is because this cost has already been incurred to produce product B and so is a sunk cost. Sunk costs are irrelevant to the decision to process further.
30,000 units of B were made from 90,000 units R so the cost of B is:
= 30,000 / 50,000 * 90,000
= $54,000
<em />
<em>The options here are probably for a variant of this question.</em>
Answer:
d. backorder
Explanation:
Based on the scenario being described within the question it can be said that the sales associate most likely offered to backorder the item for Linda. This is when a retailer places an order for a product that is no longer in stock for the time being, in order to comply with the customer, but will take a while for that order to come in and for the transaction to be completed.
Answer and Explanation:
Given:
Total car = 200
Rate = $29
Computation:
Total increase in rate = a
So , Total decrees in car = 5a
Total income (y) = [200-5a][29+a]
y = 5,800 + 200a - 145a - 5a²
y = 5,800 + 55a - 5a²
y' = dy / da [5,800 + 55a - 5a²]
y' = -10a + 55
in which , y' = 0
0 = -10a + 55
a = 5.5
So , Maximum rate = $ [29+5.5]
Maximum rate = $34.5
maximum income = 5,800 + 55(5.5)- 5(5.5)²
maximum income = 5,800 + 302.5 - 151.25
maximum income = $5951.25
A downfall of the infant-industry argument is that o<span>nce established, a tariff is politically difficult to remove.
For new industries, it almost impossible for a new startup to compete against a well-established industry unless they have a unique differentiation in their product.</span>
