business law The sale was illegal, however, because Mason did not have a license to make the purchase, which the seller knew because it had been informed by the Attorney General of that state. Mason did not pay for the fireworks, and Hi-Fireworks Inc. sue him. He defended on the ground that the contract could not be enforced because it was illegal. Was he correct?

Miko willingly admits that she is not an accountant by training. she is concerned that her balance sheet might not be correct. she has provided you with the following additional information. 1. the boat actually belongs to miko, not to skysong, inc.. however, because she thinks she might take customers out on the boat occasionally, she decided to list it as an asset of the company. to be consistent, she also listed as a liability of the corporation her personal loan that she took out at the bank to buy the boat. 2. the inventory was originally purchased for $27,500, but due to a surge in demand miko now thinks she could sell it for $39,600. she thought it would be best to record it at $39,600. 3. included in the accounts receivable balance is $11,000 that miko loaned to her brother 5 years ago. miko included this in the receivables of skysong, inc. so she wouldn’t forget that her brother owes her money. (b) provide a corrected balance sheet for skysong, inc.. (hint: to get the balance sheet to balance, adjust stockholders’ equity.) (list assets in order of liquidity.)

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?

Gus needs to purée his soup while it's still in the pot. what is the best tool for him to use? a. potato masher b. immersion blender c. rotary mixer d. whisk