An investment adviser that is a sole proprietor finds that its net worth (net capital) has fallen below the minimum requirement. what asset can an owner of the advisory firm contribute to bring the net worth back above the minimum requirement? a copyright on a book owned by the individual a b a couch from the owner's home an automobile owned by the individual co a mutual fund position owned by the individual

Acompany factory is considered which type of resource a.land b.physical capital c.labor d.human capital

Journalize the following transactions that occurred in september 2015 for aquamarines. no explanations are needed. identify each accounts payable and accounts receivable with the vendor or customer name. sep. 3 purchased merchandise inventory on account from shallin wholesalers, $5,000. terms 1/15, n/eom, fob shipping point. 4 paid freight bill of $80 on september 3 purchase. 4 purchased merchandise inventory for cash of $1,700. 6 returned $500 of inventory from september 3 purchase. 8 sold merchandise inventory to hermosa company, $6,000, on account. terms 2/15, n/35. cost of goods, $2,640. 9 purchased merchandise inventory on account from thomas wholesalers, $8,000. terms 2/10, n/30, fob destination. 10 made payment to shallin wholesalers for goods purchased on september 3, less return and discount. 12 received payment from hermosa company, less discount. 13 after negotiations, received a $200 allowance from thomas wholesalers. 15 sold merchandise inventory to jordan company, $2,500, on account. terms 1/10, n/eom. cost of goods, $1,050. 22 made payment, less allowance, to thomas wholesalers for goods purchased on september 9. 23 jordan company returned $400 of the merchandise sold on september 15. cost of goods, $160. 25 sold merchandise inventory to smithsons for $1,100 on account that cost $400. terms of 2/10, n/30 were offered, fob shipping point. as a courtesy to smithsons, $75 of freight was added to the invoice for which cash was paid by aquamarines. 26 after negotiations, granted a $100 allowance to smithsons for merchandise purchased on september 25. 29 received payment from smithsons, less allowance and discount. 30 received payment from jordan company, less return.

In december of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. the contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. until february 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. however, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. the supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. after speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? which would be the best option for your business and why?