COSTCO Case * In 1998‚ How were membership fees recorded in COSTCO’s financial statements? The membership fees recorded as revenue when received in Costco’s financial statement in 1998 according to the cash accounting. * Was this correct? If not‚ what accounting principle does it violate? No. It violates the revenue recognition principle because they did not provide services to members when they pay the membership fee during this fiscal year. It can only record this item as unearned
Premium Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Revenue Sales
Reasonably foreseeable victims were brought to the forefront by cases such as Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California and subsequent duty to warn cases. Foreseeable means that a “reasonable anticipation of the possible results of an action” exists (Foreseeability. (n.d.)). The Tarasoff decision defined the first two categories of reasonably foreseeable victims‚ a person directly named by the client as being the target‚ and a person that a psychologist deems identifiable by using
Premium Family Parent Child abuse
Mr. Gioia’s decisions regarding the Pinto fires highlights the disengagement from emotion often associated with business decisions. From a business stand point‚ decisions have to be based on facts and financial repercussions are the ultimate deciding factor in which action to pursue. If a defect in a certain make or model of car is classified as an extremely rare incident then no action will be taken. This is governed by the premise of statistical probability. Coupled with a detailed cost versus
Premium Employment Management Ethics
subsidy scheme and the Plaintiff sued the Government for subsidies it claimed it was due. Rules There was no contract. The statement made by the Commonwealth was not offered as consideration for the plaintiff buying the wool. The Court stated that in cases such as this: ‘… it is necessary‚ … that it should be made to appear that the statement or announcement which is relied on as a promise [here the subsidy statement] was really offered as consideration for the doing of the act‚ and that the act [buying
Premium Contract Plaintiff Defendant
The Obergefell decision is a landmark case that deals with a much greater debate than just that of the legality of same-sex marriage. The majority opinion of the court ruled in favor of the guaranteed right to marriage in every U.S. state regardless of the sex of the individuals involved. While the advancement of liberal social rights is evident in this opinion‚ the ruling‚ perhaps more importantly‚ confronts the struggle between the dissenting views of the nature of Constitutional revision. Through
Premium United States Constitution Liberalism Supreme Court of the United States
the Rights of People of Color’ Homework Nidhi Lala Indiana University‚ Bloomington Philosophy-P 145 Professor Sandra Shapshay 18th‚ September‚ 2014 Ta-Nehisi Coates makes an incredibly powerful statement about the rights of African Americans in ‘The Case for Reparations’. He traverses American History by exposing the various socioeconomic ways in which African American have been exploited. Coates’ shows through this essay that the exploitative acts of the past directly caused the disadvantages facing
Premium Black people Race African American
The Bridgeton case introduced a relatively simple costing system: DM‚ DL‚ and one pool of indirect‚ support‚ or overhead costs. The one and only "cost pool" containing all overhead (OH) costs was allocated on the basis of DL$. In this case‚ the direct costs seem to be largely variable (i.e.‚ they vary proportionally with production volume)‚ whereas some of the indirect costs are relatively variable and others are largely fixed. Case in point: Not all INDIRECT costs are necessarily FIXED. To figure
Premium Costs Cost Variable cost
The case of Siegel‚ et al. v. Ford Motor Company is a class action suit brought around by older managers who indicated the company ’s performance appraisal system unethically targeted them for termination due to their age. AARP assisted as co-counsel for the case which aids over four-hundred elder supervisors working with Ford Motor Company. The plaintiffs proclaim that senior administration established the system to remove older managers (US Newswire‚ 2002). The claim is that by constantly receiving
Premium Ford Motor Company Management Corporation
Washington state’s highest court unanimously ruled on February 16 against a florist who refused to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex couple’s wedding‚ deciding that her refusal was a discriminatory act. The case involved 72-year-old Barronelle Stutzman‚ who denied services for the wedding of same-sex couple [insert names here] in 2012. Stutzman had served the couple previously‚ but said she could not provide services for the wedding out of concern that doing so would cause her to participate
Premium Marriage Same-sex marriage Homosexuality
exception make it to another facility for delivery. On reviewing the case and other associated evaluations performed by Memorial Hospital‚ it becomes clear that the hospital has established a pattern of not managing indigent patients and was involved in the practice of diverting them to other facilities. Based on these findings it appears that several infractions of the EMTALA have been committed by the facility. Whether the case in question falls strictly under these guidelines it is unclear. I
Premium Jury Emergency medical services Medicine