Answer:
A. DR Petty Cash 200; CR Cash 200
Explanation:
We are asked for the entry on June 1st to stablish the petty cash fund.
The data on June 30th is irrelevant for this question.
We will only work with the information of june 1st
The ptty cash, will be an asset account. To crease an asset account we will debit it.
On credit side, we need to show how is this asset generated. In this case, with another asset, cash. Cash will be credited to show that 200 cash from the main account has been moved into the petty fund
Answer:
DR Interest receivable 26,400
CR Interest revenue 26,400
Explanation:
As first lease has already been paid, the amount left of the lease is;
= 280,000 - 40,000
=$240,000
Interest is 11% so the interest to be received in December is;
= 11% * 240,000
= $26,400
This will be debited to Interest receivable as it is money owed and credited to Interest revenue as it is money earned.
Answer:
Option B is correct. According to the Combined American Marketing Assiciation 2004, marketing is the activity for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that benefit its customers, the organization, its stakeholders, and society at large.
Explanation:
This defination clearly denies the illegal activities or unethical trading by adding the phrase that it will benefit society at large not to a single entity.
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.
