Answer and Explanation:
The effect of the given transaction is shown in the attachment below. Please find the attachment
As we know that
Accounting equation is
Total assets = Total liabilities + total stockholder equity
So,
1. In the first transaction there is an increased in assets by $29,000 and decreased the assets by $29,000 plus the same is to be recorded in the operating section of the cash flow statement
2. In the second transaction, there is decreased in asset for $49,020 also the retained earning is also decreased by same amount plus there is a bad debt expense also
Answer:
False.
Explanation:
The answer is false because in the current competitive environment of business, customers are looking for high quality and good value at competitive prices
Answer:1) Economy
2)The writing should be arranged on three subhead,prewriting,main writing and conclusion.
3) 15minutes
Explanation:in the first scenario, involves an intern,the cost to the customer,of the repair was not stated ,so the economy aspect wasn't addressed in the letter.
2) Business letters should follow a pattern,why,how and when.why tells the recipient the purpose if the letter while the How depicts how the writer intends to gather his thoughts on how to go about the writing.thus depend on the audience and the when is about when the to send the mail,it must be timely and must meet the requirements of the business.
3)The pre writing will take 15 minutes that is a quarter of an hour to put his thoughts together in writing.the pre writing is when the main ideas are pen down ,it is when the bulk of the work is done.every other aspect will depend on this stage
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:
Answer:
b.$216,000
Explanation:
The computation of the balance in the capital account for Harrison is shown below:
= Opening balance + additional invested amount - withdrawn amount + net income distributed
= $160,000 + $20,000 - $96,000 + $132,000
= $216,000
We assume that the net income is equally distributed.
Since we have to determine for the Harrison only so we ignored the Marti data which is given in the question
