Answer:
Total present value=$617,523.24
Explanation:
The formula for calculating continuous compounding is given as follows
F=P(e^it)
F=future value
P=present value
i=interest rate
t=time involved i.e 1 year or 2 year
e=Mathematical constant=2.7183
By applying above mentioned formula, the present value of inventory control software by Baron Chemicals shall be calculated as follows:
Present value of year 2 Cash flow= $286,555.76
($350,000/e^10%*2)
Present value of year 1 Cash flow= $180,967.48
($200,000/e^10%*1)
Present value of year 0 Cash flow= $150,000
Total present value=$617,523.24
Answer:
8.3% - 60%
Explanation:
Unemployment rate is the total of unemployed divided by the total workforce. As the question says, there is 1 million of unemployed and the people able to work is 12 million (1 million unemployed plus 11 employed). So the unemployment rate is 1/12... which is 8.3%
The participation rate is the employed plus the people that have no job but are actively seeking for a job, divided by the population that is in working age. The people who has no job, is in working age and available to work and is actively looking for work is the unemployed (ILO definition of unemployment). So we have 1 million plus the 11 million of employed, we have a total of 12 million. So the participation rate is 12/20... which gives us 60%
He's business is going for a healthy more eco-friendly restaurant
Answer:
$183,600
Explanation:
Since the expected useful life of the patent is only 10 years, instead of 20 years, its cost should be amortized in 10 years. That means that for every year that passes, Northern has to amortize $20,400 (= $204,000 / 10). Only one year passed between September 30, 2019 and October 1, 2018, so the patent's account on the balance sheet is $183,600 (= $204,000 - $20,400).
Answer:
The argument that the higher courts had decided the cases of similar facts and circumstance in such a way that he can expect that the court rules in his company's favor is a valid argument. The argument is based on the doctrine of stare decisions. The meaning of the doctrine stare decisions is to stand on decided cases. It is a common practice to decide the case based on the former decisions of the judicial systems. It is a set principle that if the court of higher rank has set a precedent then lower court must adhere to it. Therefore, this argument is a valid argument.
The courts are bound to follow the rule set by its higher authority. However, it is not always necessary to obligate its precedents and sometimes, the court can depart from this rule. This could be done only in the circumstances where it is found that the precedent is simply incorrect or due to social changes or technological changes made the precedent inapplicable. Therefore, the court in this case can not necessarily be ruled as the other courts had done.
