Carla Vista Company sells product 2005WSC for $130 per unit. The cost of one unit of 2005WSC is $127, and the replacement cost is $126. The estimated cost to dispose of a unit is $6, and the normal profit is 40% of selling price. At what amount per unit should product 2005WSC be reported, applying lower-of-cost-or-market?

Reynolds corp. factors $400,000 of accounts receivable with mateer finance corporation on a without recourse basis on july 1, 2015. the receivables records are transferred to mateer finance, which will receive the collections. mateer finance assesses a finance charge of 1 ½ percent of the amount of accounts receivable and retains an amount equal to 4% of accounts receivable to cover sales discounts, returns, and allowances. the transaction is to be recorded as a sale.required: a. prepare the journal entry on july 1, 2015, for reynolds corp. to record the sale of receivables without recourse.b. prepare the journal entry on july 1, 2015, for mateer finance corporation to record the purchase of receivables without recourse— think through this.c. explain the difference between sale of receivables with recourse as oppose to without recourse.

Helen tells her nephew, bernard, that she will pay him $100 if he will stop smoking for six months. helen was hopeful that if bernard stopped smoking for six months, he would stop altogether. bernard stops smoking for six months but then resumes his smoking. helen will not pay him. she says that the type of promise she made cannot constitute a binding contract and that, furthermore, it was at least implied that he would stop smoking for good. can bernard legally collect $100 from helen

How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project? the environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation. the environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. if the utility mitigates for the environmental effects, the project is not acceptable. however, before the company chooses to do the project without mitigation, it needs to make sure that any costs of "ill will" for not mitigating for the environmental effects have been considered in the original analysis. the environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur. the environmental effects if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. therefore, since the plant is legal without mitigation, there are no benefits to performing a "no mitigation" analysis.