Answer:
preferred stockholders received $15,000 during the first 3 years
- $2,000 in the first year
- $6,000 in the second year
- $7,000 in the third year
common shareholders received $25,000 in dividends during the third year.
Explanation:
preferred stock = 1,000 shares x $100 par value x 5% = $5,000
common stock = 10,000 shares at $10 par value
dividends declared and paid during the first 3 years:
year dividends
1 $2,000
2 $6,000
3 $32,000
preferred stockholders should have received $5,000 per year x 3 years = $15,000. Preferred stockholders must be paid first, and their payment is fixed. If the dividends are not enough to pay the total amount, the remaining amount should be paid next year.
- $2,000 in the first year
- $6,000 in the second year
- $7,000 in the third year
common shareholders received $32,000 - $7,000 = $25,000 in dividends during the third year.
Answer:
a. Increased wealth due to lower prices and greater product diversity b. Ability to use productive resources found only in other countries.
Explanation:
A: Benefits of International trade for households, is an increase in wealth as a consequence of the drop in prices of goods that are imported (because these products are produced efficiently abroad), and a potential drop in prices of local goods because productive factors could potentially be more efficiently allocated increasing the productivitiy of such factors. Households also benefit because a higher diversity of products could expand their utility curve by richer consumption alternatives. B: Benefits of international trade for firms is an expansion of the disposable resources available to produce local goods, which could increase the productivity per productive factor by relatively lower prices of resources and higher quantities.
The amount of Doug's taxable income is <u>$27,700</u>.
<u>Explanation</u>:
<u><em>GIVEN</em></u>:
AGI = $35,000
State income taxes = $2300
Local property taxes = $3000
Medical expense = $800
Charitable contribution = $2000
Total deduction amount= State income taxes+Local property taxes+Charitable contribution
= 2300+3000+2000
= $ 7300
Total deduction amount= $7300
Taxable income= $35000- $7300
= $27,700
The amount of Doug's taxable income is <u>$27,700</u>.
Answer:
(b.) Isabel will have a judgment entered in her favor
Explanation:
Under the Rules of the court Josh's action is referred to as Default of Appearance. Isabel is the Complainant while Josh is the Defendant.
It is the law that where a Defendant fails to appear before the court where there is a proof of service of the summons on him or her, Complainant may apply to the Judge for a judgement in respect of the claim on the summons to be entered in his or her favor against the Defendant.
Therefore, in the instance case at hand, Isabel will have a judgment entered in her favor for failure of Josh to appear before the court.
Option (a) is not the answer because Isabel does not need to file an amended complaint because Isabel did not ask the court for any amendment of her complaint. Isabel can only file an amended complaint if she intends to change her complaint against Josh.
Option (c) is not also the answer because Josh chooses to ignore the summons served on him. If for instance Josh did not get the summons served on him or the judge is of the opinion that Josh was not properly served, then the court can order that Josh must be served with a second summons.
Option (d) is also not the answer because Josh cannot have a judgment entered in his favor because he is the person who defaulted appearance before the court. A party who is in default of appearance cannot have judgment entered in his favor.
Answer:
The answer is: C) lose because he will not be able to prove reliance on the misrepresentation.
Explanation:
In order for Larson to be able to rescind the contract, he would have to prove that he had reasonable reliance that Robert Redford owned that specific car. Reasonable reliance refers to a person believing something to be a fact, which any other person could reasonably believe in as well.
But exactly how could he prove that someone else might also believe that the car was previously owned by Robert Redford? I find it very doubtful that he can prove that.
