Answer:
Wanda is most likely to refuse.
Explanation:
The stage 4 of Kohlberg's Moral Development Model is defined as the Law and Order Orientation Stage, in which doing what is dutiful is paramount. If Wanda accepted his supervisor's demands, she would be breaking a law (the GAAP), and this act would therefore go against what the Kohlberg's model proposes. She will most likely respect the law despite the conquesequences that this might have on her personal life (for example, being fired).
Answer:
c. $1.58.
Explanation:
The computation of the direct materials cost per equivalent unit is given below:
Equivalent units for material is
= 100% of 193,000 + 100% of 28,000
= 193,000 + 28,000
= 221,000
Equivalent cost for material is
= $94,100 + $254,800
= $348,900
So, the direct materials cost per equivalent unit is
= $348,900 ÷ 221,000
= $1.58
Answer:
Mitigate his damages
Explanation:
By law, mitigation involves making effort to reduce losses. Now, an individual claiming damages or losses due to break in contract or a wrongful act by another individual has a duty under the law to mitigate those damages. That is to say, the plantiff is under a duty under the law to reduce the loss by taking advantage of any opportunity arising that may help.redice the losses or damages. However, in this case, the plantiff, who's the landlord Henry did not mitigate the loss by not attempting to or renting the accommodation out for the remaining six month. Thus, the damages would likely be reduced because he failed to mitigate his damages as he should have done as required under the law.
Answer: $57,101.73
Explanation:
First find the present value of the cash inflows. The $32,000 is a constant payment so is an annuity. The net working capital will be realized at the end of the project as well.
Present value of cash inflows = (32,000 * Present value interest factor of an annuity, 4 years, 12%) + 3,000/ (1 + 12%)⁴
= (32,000 * 3.0373) + 1,906.55
= $99,101.73
NPV = Present value of inflows - Outflows
= 99,100.15 - (39,000 + 3,000)
= $57,101.73
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
Yes, Robin would need to pay because she knew that Ted was not licensed and still decided to hire him. Therefore, agreeing to contract Ted and pay him for the work that he has done. Regardless of whether or not Ted's job was legal or not Robin still agreed and must pay Ted. Ted will later have to deal with his own legal issues but that does not affect the contract that was agreed upon by both parties.
