Answer:
b. 29,800.
Explanation:
Number of units out in January = 25,000 units completed during month + 80% of 6,000 units completed at month end
= 25,000 + 4,800
= 29,800
Answer:
Yes, the firm Commodities Exchange Corporation is liable to E-products Inc. as it has entered into a contract with Brenda who had written authority to buy on behalf of the firm.
Explanation:
Indeed, the risk of Commodities stretches out to E-Products. This is mostly a direct result of the risk of the chief is towards the operator for the agreement the specialist is the gathering in the interest of the head. Aside from this, there is an express power having a place with Brenda as she was given the approval from the head. Because of express, an evident position E-Products got the affirmation that Commodities is being spoken to by Brenda.
There is no close to home risk of Brenda to pay for the different fringe gadgets to the E-Products. Because of evident position, it was a reality clear to E-Products that Brenda is just going about as an operator for Commodities. As these items were purchased for the utilization of the head as opposed to the individual utilization of Brenda in this way she doesn't have any obligation.
Answer: Ethical Obligations and Decision-Making in Accounting-The Heading is devoted to helping students cultivate the ethical commitment needed to ensure that their work meets the highest standards of integrity, independence, and objectivity.
* This program is designed to provide instructors with the flexibility and pedagogical effectiveness, and includes numerous features designed to make both learning and teaching easier.
Explanation: The first, addressed in Part I, is the administrative cost of deregulation, which has grown substantially under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.Part II addresses the consequences of the FCC's use of a competitor-welfare standard when formulating its policies for local competition, rather than a consumer-welfare standard. I evaluate the reported features of the FCC's decision in its Triennial Review. Press releases and statements concerning that decision suggest that the FCC may have finally embraced a consumer-welfare approach to mandatory unbundling at TELRIC prices. The haphazard administrative process surrounding the FCC's decision, however, increases the likelihood of reversal on appeal.Beginning in Part III, I address at greater length the WorldCom fraud and bankruptcy. I offer an early assessment of the harm to the telecommunications industry from WorldCom's fraud and bankruptcy. I explain how WorldCom's misconduct caused collateral damage to other telecommunications firms, government, workers, and the capital markets. WorldCom's false Internet traffic reports and accounting fraud encouraged overinvestment in long-distance capacity and Internet backbone capacity. Because Internet traffic data are proprietary and WorldCom dominated Internet backbone services, and because WorldCom was subject to regulatory oversight, it was reasonable for rival carriers to believe WorldCom's misrepresentation of Internet traffic growth. Event study analysis suggests that the harm to rival carriers and telecommunications equipment manufacturers from WorldCom's restatement of earnings was $7.8 billion. WorldCom's false or fraudulent statements also supplied state and federal governments with incorrect information essential to the formulation of telecommunication policy. State and federal governments, courts, and regulatory commissions would thus be justified in applying extreme skepticism to future representations made by WorldCom.Part IV explains how WorldCom's fraud and bankruptcy may have been intended to harm competition, and in the future may do so, by inducing exit (or forfeiture of market share) by the company's rivals. WorldCom repeatedly deceived investors, competitors, and regulators with false statements about its Internet traffic projections and financial performance. At a minimum, WorldCom's fraudulent or false
Answer:
D. $525,000
Explanation:
budgeted production = 15,000 units/month
unit production time required = 30 minutes => 0.5 hours
direct labor rate = $70 per hour
Budgeted cost of direct labor for the month = 15,000 * 0.5 * 70
= $525,000
