Answer:
Huprey Co.
Identifying the accounting treatment for each claim as either (a) a liability that is recorded or (b) an item described in notes to its financial statements:
1. Huprey (defendant) estimates that a pending lawsuit could result in damages of $1,550,000; it is unlikely that the plaintiff will win the case.a. A liability that is recorded.
b. An item described in notes to its financial statements.
2. Huprey faces a loss on a pending lawsuit that it is unlikely to lose; the amount is reasonably estimable.
a. An item described in notes to its financial statements. b. A liability that is recorded.
3. Huprey faces a probable loss on a pending lawsuit; the amount is reasonably estimable.a. An item described in notes to its financial statements.
b. A liability that is recorded.
Explanation:
Huprey Co. will recognize and record contingent liabilities in its accounts when it can be reasonably established that the future event will occur and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The implication is that Huprey Co. must establish two things before a contingent liability is recognized and recorded. One is that the probability or the likelihood or the chance that the event will happen exists and can be estimated. With the probability estimate, it becomes possible for Huprey Co. to also estimate the amount that the happening of the event will cost it.
Answer:
$3.62
Explanation:
Dividend Yield = 0.12/2
Dividend Yield = 0.06
==> (Dividend in One Year)/Current Price= .045
D1 = 0.06*$64
D1 = $3.84
D0 (Current Dividend) = D1/(1+Dividend Yield)
D0 (Current Dividend) = $3.84/(1.06)
D0 (Current Dividend) = 3.622641509433962
D0 (Current Dividend) = $3.62
Answer:
The conception of man as an economic animal is implied by the view that economic production is the determining “factor” or “sphere” of man or society. Against this conception can be put another, that of man as praxis. This takes account of man as a creative being, capable of realizing his freedom through his own activity. In this article the theory of the determining role of the “economic factor”, and the theory of factors in general have been examined. The economic interpretation of history, a variant of the theory of factors, has been acknowledged as partly true for the self‐alienated man and society, but the theory of factors in any variant has been found inadequate as a general theory of man, or society. The possibility of freedom cannot be reduced to the fact that the determining roles played by “factors”, vary, or to the hope that the economic “factor” can be subordinated to a “better” one. Man's freedom consists in his resolving the conflict of “factors”, and in realizing himself as an integral creative being, no longer split into independent and mutually opposed spheres.
Explanation:
that should help
