fire that took place at one of the Burger Ranch restaurants in Canoga Hills, Gould. Our firm’s focus was to review the financial data provided by Mr. Washington on the issue of liability for damages of lost profits.
“In light of the entire transaction as it was outlined to them by Wisconsin, did First Midwestern provide the correct advice to their customer on how to structure the transactions? Did they appear to be fully diligent?”
Because they have faced cash shortage trouble. Their profitability has grown for 1993 ~ 1995 period, as we can see from their I/S (e.g. Sales and Net Income, etc.). However, as its business size grows, their A/R increased, which means that it is getting difficult to collect cash. On the other hand, A/P decreased for the same period, which means that the company paid cash for A/P, resulting in critical cash shortage. Furthermore, the A/P payment period is shorter than A/R collection periods, the company’s cash problem happens to be accelerated.
On March 21, 2015, Reuters reported that the King Pine lift at Sugarloaf Mountain Ski Resort malfunctioned. Nine chairs travelled backwards on the cable, injuring seven people; three of whom required hospitalization for non-threatening injuries. Sugarloaf experienced a similar incident on December 28, 2010. (Cavalier, 2015) Bangor Daily News reported that eight individuals were hospitalized for injuries as a result of the derailment of the Spillway East chairlift. Rick Tounge, one of the eight injured, stated, “I think we’re pretty conscious of the risk we think we’re taking (in skiing), and that involves trees and other skiers and that stuff. You don’t expect the chair to try and kill you.” (Portland Press Herald, 2011) Michael Katz filed suit against Sugarloaf Mountain Resort on the following six causes of action: I. negligence, II. common carrier liability, III. strict product liability, IV. breach of warranty, V. loss of consortium, VI. punitive damages. The defendants moved for dismissal of claims II, III, and IV. The Superior Court of Maine granted the motion to dismiss claims III and IV but denied the motion to dismiss on claim II. (Michael and Patricia Katz et al v. CNL Lifestyle Properties et al).
Sam Stevens lives in an apartment building owned by his landlord, Mr. Quinn, where he has been working on an invention that plays the sound of a barking dog to scare off potential intruders. A national chain store has contacted Mr. Stevens, and would like to sell his product exclusively. Despite the fact that Mr. Stevens and the store never signed a physical contract, he verbally told a store manager several months ago that he would ship 1,000 units. Now, the chain store has just contacted Mr. Stevens via letter, demanding that he deliver the promised 1,000 units immediately (Southern New Hampshire University, n.d.).
Mark volunteered to help with the community arts festival; he was supporting the not-for-profit organization as he had in the past. However, he did not know his good intentions as a volunteer would cost him his job as an assistant manager. The retail store’s phone number was printed in the festival advertising in error and ticket requests overloaded the phone lines, causing loss of business and annoyed the store manager. As a result, Mark was seen as the cause of the problems and terminated.
The primary users will be the Japanese lumber company who is interested in purchasing CFCL, and the owner, Don Strom. The purchaser will depend on the financial statements to assess performance of the company. However, they will most likely focus on inspection of CFCL’s timber assets to value the company and the purchase price. Strom will be looking at the statements to ensure proper management performance, and that net income is not overstated, to reduce bonus and tax payouts. The Controller will also hold a bias to inflate net income to increase his bonus. Attention should be given to ensure his new policy suggestions are not for his own benefit, but the benefit of CFCL and Strom. Accounting alternatives and recommendations in relation to the issues and new policies will be discussed.
Simon, the manager of the damaged Burger Ranch, inspected the tree, was satisfied with the tree, initialed the receipt, and paid the $150 for the tree. These facts definitively imply that the buyer did accept the goods after he had a reasonable opportunity to inspect it and then made the judgement that it conformed to their satisfaction, therefore legally accepting the goods.
At first glance, Clarkson Lumber appears to be a healthy company. However, despite rapid growth and increasing sales Clarkson Lumber finds itself searching for additional funding to compensate for a shortage in cash to fund its expanding business. Clarkson Lumber is in this situation for a number of reasons.
Renee McDonald (“Plaintiff”) allegedly sustained personal injuries on October 8, 2015 while shopping at a store owned and operated by Costco (“Defendant”) in Brooklyn Park, Maryland. According to the plaintiff, while walking through the store, she tripped on mop water which caused her to fall to the ground and suffer “severe bodily injuries.” The Plaintiff claims that her fall was caused by the mop water. The mopped area had been secured with a yellow caution sign that warned customers of the wet floor. At the time of the Plaintiff’s fall, however, the sign had fallen down and was lying on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that the store did not have proper signage to warn of the hazardous condition.
This memorandum will address issues raised by the transformation from U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the timber industry. I will cover the following topics: different accounting treatment under U.S. GAAP and IFRS, the influence on investment decisions, Plum Creek’s reason for the opposition against transformation, and conclude with my preferred accounting treatment under different roles.
This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.
The decision of the jury was based on the principles of comparative negligence. McDonald's was found guilty and responsible 80% for the coffee burn. Liebeck was found responsible 20% for the occurrence of the incident. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was not large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck, and both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.
DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. WILSON 'S ESTIMATE OF THE COMPANY 'S LOAN REQUIREMENTS? HOW MUCH WILL HE NEED TO FINANCE THE EXPECTED EXPANSION IN SALES TO $ 5.5 MILLION IN 2006 AND TO TAKE ALL TRADE DISCOUNTS?