Answer:
If the company buys the component, income will decrease by $225,000.
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Units= 40,000
The manufacturing cost:
Direct materials $ 75,000
Direct labor 120,000
Variable overhead 45,000
An outside supplier has offered to sell the component for $12.75.
Vest Industries can rent its unused manufacturing facilities for $45,000.
We will take into account only the differential costs.
<u>Make in -house:</u>
Total cost= 75,000 + 120,000 + 45,000= $240,000
<u>Buy:</u>
Total cost= 40,000*12.75 - 45,000= $465,000
If the company buys the component, income will decrease by $225,000.
Answer:
a. The party control of government when Congress passed legislation in 2014 to repeal the ACA was when Republicans gained majority seats in both chambers of Congress. This Republican control of Congress was the catalyst for the repeal of the ACA in 2014.
b. The Republican representative who cast a vote in favor of the ACA bill in 2009 followed strictly his constituency mandate.
c. When President Obama vetoed the ACA repeal, the Republicans could proceed to court to try to use the judicial branch of government to implement their legislative goals by requesting for constitutional interpretation of the repealed bill.
If this had happened, it would have seriously hampered the implementation and success of the Affordable Care Act for partisan reasons.
Explanation:
a) Congress is the legislative arm of government that makes the law. The executive implements the law. The judiciary is in charge of the interpretation and application the law to real situations. But when the President vetoes a bill, Congress can override the veto by ensuring that 2/3 of both chambers pass the law. Alternatively, Congress can ask for a judicial interpretation.
She does not have an excessive debt because of her debt-to-income ratio lower than 42 percent. 42% is a limit of good average debt to income ratio and Sabina's debt to income ratio has not yet exceeded that limit. The debt to income ratio can be calculated by<span> dividing her total debt by her total income which results in 37.5% (($300+$450)/$2000 = 37.5%).</span>
Answer:
Dr Cash Account and Cr Capital Account
Explanation:
Initial investment of $10,000 is the capital injected by the owner of the business. This inflow will be credited as an equity capital of the company while the cash balance will be debited as it represent a cash inflow to the business.
Answer:
1.Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant] - The plaintiff is Henry Keller of H.K.Enterprises and the defendant is Bank of Nigeria and Nigerian individuals Central Bank of Nigeria, Paul Ogwuma, ?Alhaji Rasheed, Alhaji M.A. Sadiq.
2.Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case] - The case was filed by Keller against the defendants in United States. The case was filed under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) as the plaintiff found himself a victim of fraud and financial scam.The scam occured when one of the defendants approached the plaintiff who was the sales representative of medical equipments for granting him the distribution rights for Nigeria. The expected amount of money was not transferred in the account of plaintiff inspite of his attempts of meeting the requirements of the defendants. The defendants acted on the behalf of Central Bank of Nigeria and as Nigerian individuals.
3.Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?] - The appeal was filed by the defendants Central Bank of Nigeria,?Paul Ogwuma, Alhaji Rasheed, Alhaji M.A. Sadiq. The lower court gave the decision that the claims of fraud and misrepresentation do not hold against the defendants as the plaintiff entered into an arrangement with them which is not legal and as per the rules. However the lower court ruled that immunity cannot be given under FSIA to the defendants as the commercial activity is an exception and claims for violation of RICO are applicable on them.
4. Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns] - The case turns on the appeal of defendants to be granted immunity under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The ruling indicated that the defendants have sovereign authority. Also, the commercial activity clause did not apply in this case as the activity was not done in United States and did not meet the legal standards of a commercial activity.
5.Explain the applicable law(s). - Applicable laws are Common law fraud, violations of RICO(Rackteer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), Misrepresentation.
6.Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?] - The court resolved the issue by giving a decision in the favor of defendants by ruling that immunity is given to Foreign nationals under FSIA and dismissed any claims filed against them under RICO.
7.Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision] - The logic supporting the court's decision is that the arrangement between the plaintiff and defendants including the signed contract was not as per the laws and rules and was not legally compliant. Moreover the commercial activity was out of bounds for United states so the exception to FISA is not applicable. The defendants claimed that they did not enter into the contract with the plaintiff.
Explanation:
