No Transacción 1

Aporte de capital por USD 60,000, de los cuales USD

35,000 fueron en efectivo y USD 25,000 en un vehículo

2

Compra de Equipo de Computo a crédito por el valor de USD 4,500

3

Compra de muebles para la oficina por el valor de USD

36,000, de los cuales USD 2,000 fueron cancelados en

efectivo y USD 4,000 se cancelarán dentro de 3 meses

4

Compra de suministros para ser utilizados dentro de los

sisguientes 3 meses, por el valor de USD 2,500 en efectivo

5

Se vendieron servicios por el valor de USD 8,000 en

efectivo

6

Se pago el arriendo por el valor de USD 1,500

Se Vendieron servicios por el valor de USD 15,000 a crédito

7

Se cancelaron gastos por servicios generales por un valor de USD 350

8

Se pagáron USD 1,500 que estaban pendientes por la

compra del Equipo de computo

Ursus, inc., is considering a project that would have a five-year life and would require a $1,650,000 investment in equipment. at the end of five years, the project would terminate and the equipment would have no salvage value. the project would provide net operating income each year as follows (ignore income taxes.):

The green revolution is a scientific breakthrough that improved seeds for basic crops. how did the green revolution impact the supply of basic crops such as wheat and corn? the supply of wheat and corn increased. there was no impact on the supply of basic crops. the supply of basic crops did not change, but the quantity supplied of basic crops increased. the supply of wheat and corn decreased.

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.