According to jack gibb’s work on supportive and defensive communication, a supervisor who is promoting a disconfirming climate.

Paar corporation bought 100 percent of kimmel, inc., on january 1, 2012. on that date, paar’s equipment (10-year life) has a book value of $420,000 but a fair value of $520,000. kimmel has equipment (10-year life) with a book value of $272,000 but a fair value of $400,000. paar uses the equity method to record its investment in kimmel. on december 31, 2014, paar has equipment with a book value of $294,000 but a fair value of $445,200. kimmel has equipment with a book value of $190,400 but a fair value of $357,000. the consolidated balance for the equipment account as of december 31, 2014 is $574,000. what would be the impact on consolidated balance for the equipment account as of december 31, 2014 if the parent had applied the initial value method rather than the equity method? the balance in the consolidated equipment account cannot be determined for the initial value method using the information given. the consolidated equipment account would have a higher reported balance. the consolidated equipment account would have a lower reported balance. no effect: the method the parent uses is for internal reporting purposes only and has no impact on consolidated totals.

Oceanside marine company manufactures special metallic materials and decorative fittings for luxury yachts that require highly skilled labor. oceanside uses standard costs to prepare its flexible budget. for the first quarter of the year, direct materials and direct labor standards for one of their popular products were as follows: direct materials: 2 pound per unit; $ 11 per pound direct labor: 2 hours per unit; $ 19 per hour oceanside produced 2 comma 000 units during the quarter. at the end of the quarter, an examination of the direct materials records showed that the company used 7 comma 500 pounds of direct materials and actual total materials costs were $ 98 comma 100. what is the direct materials cost variance? (round any intermediate calculations to the nearest cent, and your final answer to the nearest dollar.)

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?