It would be d bc it not everyone does all of the things they are saying
Answer:
B) firms reduce hours before laying off when the economy is in recession, and increase hours before hiring when the economy expands.
Explanation:
In the case when the output falls so the workers would not be laid off in a direct manner. In the first time the labor would be decreased so that the demand could be analyzed. The same would be happen in that case also where the growth picked up
Therefore in the given case, the option B is correct
And the other options are wrong
Answer:
a. Compute the cost of retained earnings (Ke)
$60 = $3 / (Ke - 8%)
Ke - 8% = $3 / $60 = 5%
Ke = 13%
b. If a $5 flotation cost is involved, compute the cost of new common stock (Kn).
$60 (1 - $5/$60) = $3 / (Kn - 8%)
$55 = $3 / (Kn - 8%)
Kn - 8% = $3 / $55 = 5.45%
Kn = 13.45%
Flotation costs reduce the amount of money that the company receives for every new stock that it issues, therefore, it increases the cost of new stocks.
Answer:
<em>Ratification by Principal One of the criteria for enactment is that all material truths involved in the transaction must be known to the Principal. Van Stavern was not aware of Hash's behaviour. </em>
He did not realize that somehow the steel is being shipped under his name, and that the shipments were being billed him directly. Unlike liability through obvious authority, approval by the principal is a positive act by which he or she acknowledges the agent's illegal actions.
Just a principal would ratify; thus, Van Stavern was not directly imputed to information by the invoices and checks signed by Van Stavern's workers.
The court stated that the use of corporate checks was further proof that Van Stavern regarded the expenditures as business, not private. So Van Stavern could not be held personally liable.
Remember that on Sutton Steel that's not excessively harsh. Sutton understood it was working with a building company and did not seek to get the personal approval of the contract from Van Stavern.
<em>Lawfully, Sutton's agreement in this case is called an unaccepted offer which can be withdrawn at any time.</em>
<em></em>
Answer:
A. $1,517,648 thousand
Explanation:
The computation of the cost of goods sold using the FIFO method is shown below:
= Cost of goods sold under LIFO - (Ending LIFO reserves - Beginning LIFO reserves)
= $1,517,397 - ($4,345 - $4,094)
= $1,517,648
We simply applied the above formula so that the cost of goods sold using the FIFO method could come
All other information i.e given is not relevant. Hence, ignored it
