Answer:
d- EVP has a short-term swing profit is $3000
Explanation:
Lets first understand what short-term swing profit is. Short-term swing profit is profit dependent upon a rule normally set by the securities & exchange commission which states that any profits made by company insiders through the purchase and sale of share/stocks within six months must be returned to the company. Company insiders are people/employees working within the entity mostly having more than 10% of company's shares or employees such as executives, directors and managers.
Now It's not clear from the question what the purchase price of the shares was when EVP sold them on January 12 2016, assuming these shares were purchased at $20, then the short-term swing profit would be $2000 as at January. Then EVP purchases 100 shares at $20 and sells them at $30 per share as at june. The additional short-term swing profit would be $1000 (i.e $30-$20=$10 per share).
Therefore the total short-term swing profit is $3000
Answer:
c. A credit to Cash of $272.75.
Explanation:
These transactions can be explained with the help of T- Account .
<h2><u> Cash </u></h2><h3><u>Debit Credit </u></h3>
Bal $ 500
Freight $61
Shipping
Charges $ 85
Supplies $ 50
Donation $ 69
Suspense 7.75
<u>Fund $ 227.25 </u>
Fund $ 227.25
<u> Reimbursement </u><u> $272.75</u>
<u> $ 500 </u>
<u />
<em><u>As there is shortage of $ 272.25 in the amount of $ 500 the petty cash will be reimbursed with this amount.</u></em>
<em><u>An amount of $ 7.75 is short which is dealt in suspense account and reimbursed with the amount falling short.</u></em>
Answer:
Jess receives one-half of the estate, and Kato and Lars each receive one-fourth
Explanation:
The question is complete but phrased incorrectly as the options are not separated.
Answer:
No there was no contract, there was at best an agreement to agree (an agreement based on understanding that a future arrangement can be made).
Nina said she was still thinking about her son's proposal and had not decided yet, so there was no contract.
Oral contracts is a spoken agreement between two parties that may be legally binding.
Breach of oral contract can be hard to prove since it is not written down.
An oral agreement between family members is not enough to be considered a contract.
Explanation:
Answer:
the government's sovereign immunity
Explanation:
In the US, the federal and state governments have sovereign immunity which means that they cannot be sued unless they agree to it. In the US, the federal government waived their immunity protection from a series of possible torts through the Federal Tort Claims Act. But that law does not include litter or accidents occurring in highways.
Sovereign immunity basically states that the federal government cannot be sued for its actions unless those actions are included in the Federal Tort Claims Act. To be able to sue a state government other rules apply, specially regarding the circumstances around the reason for the claim.
