Answer:
appreciated; depreciated
Explanation:
The dollar appreciates when there is an increase in the value of the dollar compared to others. In 2009 $1 U.S dollar could buy $0.89 Canadian dollars. Then, in 2010 $1 U.S dollar could buy $0.96 Canadian dollars. Therefore, the U.S dollar appreciated because $1 U.S dollar can buy more Canadian dollars.
The opposite happened with the exchange rate between the U.S dollar and the euro. From 2009 to 2010 the exchange rate decreased from 83.8 to 76.9. Then the U.S dollar depreciated: $1 U.S dollar can buy less euros.
Answer:
$4,800
Explanation:
Data provided in the question:
Cost = $66,000
Accumulated depreciation = $30,000
Book value = Cost - Accumulated depreciation
= $66,000 - $30,000
= $36,000
Now,
Fair value = $48,000 + $12,000
= $60,000
Thus,
Gain = $60,000 - $36,000
= $24,000
Therefore,
Gain to be recognized = $24,000 × [ 12,000 ÷ 60,000 ]
= $4,800
Answer:
The answer is: A) When the marginal cost of producing an additional unit equals the marginal revenue from that unit.
Explanation:
In economics, we assume that a company´s main goal is to maximize its profit. In order for any company do to this, the marginal cost (MC) of producing an extra unit of production must equal the marginal revenue (MR) obtained by selling that extra unit of production.
Theoretically, in perfect market conditions, MR=MC in the equilibrium point between quantity supplied and quantity demanded. But on real world conditions elasticity of both demand and supply alter the curves.
<span>The question is incomplete, here is the complete question which I previously came across;</span>
When Janice went to work as a hair stylist in Rick's beauty shop, she entered into an agreement with Rick, whereby, if she left she would not work for another beauty shop within 50 miles for 2 years. Rick trained Janice in a number of new techniques. After nine months, Janice was offered a great job down the street at a new beauty shop, quit Rick, and had a number of customers follow her down the street to her new job. Rick claimed that she had signed a contract and had no right to go to work at the new shop. Janice disagreed and told Rick that no judge in the country would enforce such an agreement. Janice told Rick that she was more worried about a customer, Treena, who was threatening to sue her because her hair turned green after Janice worked on it. Janice agreed that Treena's hair was damaged. Janice pointed out, however, that she told Treena that odd results could result from a dye attempt, and she required that Treena sign a contract releasing Janice from all liabilities before she did anything with Treena's hair. Treena, however, sued anyway. The agreement Rick and Janice entered into is referred to as?
The answer is, the agreement Rick and Janice entered into is referred to as "<span>covenant not to compete".</span>
<span>
</span>
It is hard
to decide if a judge will implement a non-competition agreement. While the privileged insights of a business are important,
the law additionally puts value to a person's opportunity to seek after other
work. To be enforceable Courts more often than not require that a contract not
to compete be sensible. In California, non-competes are adequately unlawful
except if you are selling a business. Different states will implement a few provisions,
as a rule the trade secret protection, however not the work limitations.