ACC 543 Entire Course FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT www.acc543edu.com ACC 543 Week 1 Individual Textbook 4.16, 4.18, 4.20 ACC 543 Week 2 Individual Textbook Exercise Ex-5.17, Case 6.55, Ex 7.21, Ex 8-25 ACC 543 Week 3 Individual Textbook Exercise (10.22, 11.16, 11.18, 15.16) ACC 543 Week 3 Team Assignment Capital Budget Recommendation (2 Papers) ACC 543 Week 4 Individual Textbook Exercise (22.1, 22.2, 22.5, 25.1, 25.2, 25.5) ACC 543 Week 4 Team Assignment (26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 26.7, 27.1, 27.2, 27.4, 27.5, 27.7) ACC 543 Week 5 Individual Textbook Exercise (47.2, 47.3, 47.6, 50.1, 50.6, 50.7, 45.2, 45.5, 45.6, 45.7) ACC 543 Week 5 Team Aspects of Employment and Environment Paper and PowerPoint River-Rafting Location ACC 543 Week 6 Individual Textbook Exercise (29.1, 29.2, 29.4, 30.4,31.1, 31.3, 31.6, 33.3, 33.5, 33.6, 51.1, 51.2, 51.3, 51.4, 51.5 51.6) ACC 543 Week 6 Team Assignment Flexible Budgets ************************************************* ACC 543 Exercise 18-17B: Process Cost System Cost of Production Report (UOP) FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT www.acc543edu.com Exercise 18-17B: Process Cost System Cost of Production Report At the beginning of 2004, Dozier Company had 1,800 units of product in its work in process inventory, and it started 19,200 additional units of product during the year. At the end of the year, 6,000 units of product were in the work in process inventory. The ending work in process inventory was estimated to be 50 percent complete. The cost of work in process inventory at the beginning of the period was \$9,000, and \$108,000 of product costs was added during the period. Required Prepare a cost of production report showing the following. a. The number of equivalent units of production. b. The product cost per equivalent unit. c. The total cost allocated between the ending Work in Process Inventory and Finished Goods Inventory accounts. ************************************************* ACC 543 Week 1 Individual Textbook 4.16, 4.18, 4.20 FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT www.acc543edu.com Relevant Cost and Decision Making 4.16 Make or buy Yoklic Corporation currently manufactures a subassembly for its main product. The costs per unit are as follows: Regina Corp has contacted Yoklic with an offer to sell it 5,000 subassemblies for \$55.00 each. REQUIRED: 1. Should Yoklic make or buy the subassemblies? Create a schedule that shows the total quantitative differences between the two alternatives. 2.

ACC 543 Week 4 Team Assignment (26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 26.7, 27.1, 27.2, 27.4, 27.5, 27.7) FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT www.acc543edu.com 26.1 Mechanic’s Lien Ironwood Exploration, Inc. 26.2 Foreclosure Atlantic Ocean Kampgrounds, Inc. 26.3 Redemption 26.5 Consumer Leasing Joyce 26.7 Fair Debt Collection Stanley 27.1 Financing Statement C&H Trucking, Inc. 27.2 Priority of Security Agreements World Wide Tracers, Inc 27.4 Priority of Security Interests 27.5 Purchase Money Security Interest Prior Brothers, Inc 27.7 Buyer in the Ordinary Course of Business 26.1 Mechanic’s Lien Ironwood Exploration, Inc. (Ironwood) owned a lease on oil and gas property located in Duchesne County, Utah. Ironwood contracted to have Lantz Drilling and Exploration Company, Inc. (Lantz), drill an oil well on the property. Thereafter, Lantz rented equipment from Graco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. (Graco), for use in drilling the well. Graco billed Lantz for these rentals, but Lantz did not pay. Graco filed a notice of a mechanic’s lien on the well in the amount of \$19,766. Ironwood, which had paid Lantz, refused to pay Graco. Graco sued to foreclose on its mechanic’s lien. Who wins? Graco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. v. Ironwood Exploration, Inc., 766 P.2d 1074, 98 Utah Adv. Rep. 28, Web 1988 Utah Lexis 125 (Supreme Court of Utah) 26.2 Foreclosure Atlantic Ocean Kampgrounds, Inc. (Atlantic) borrowed \$60,000 from Camden National Bank (Camden National) and executed a note and mortgage on property located in Camden, Maine, securing that amount. Maine permits strict foreclosure. Atlantic defaulted on the loan, and Camden commenced strict foreclosure proceedings pursuant to state law. After the one-year period of redemption, Camden National sold the property to a third party in an amount in excess of the mortgage and costs of the foreclosure proceeding. Atlantic sued to recover the surplus from Camden National. Who wins? Atlantic Ocean Kampgrounds, Inc. v. Camden National Bank, 473 A.2d 884, Web 1984 Me. Lexis 666 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine) 26.3 Redemption Elmer and Arletta Hans, husband and wife, owned a parcel of real property in Illinois. They borrowed \$100,000 from First Illinois National Bank (First Illinois) and executed a note and mortgage to First Illinois, making the real estate security for the loan. The security agreement authorized First Illinois to take possession of the property upon the occurrence of a default and required the Hanses to execute a quitclaim deed in favor of First Illinois. The state of Illinois recognizes the doctrine of redemption. When the Hanses defaulted on the loan, First Illinois filed a lawsuit, seeking an order requiring the Hanses to immediately execute a quitclaim deed to the property. Must the Hanses execute the quitclaim deed before the foreclosure sale? First Illinois National Bank v. Hans, 143 Ill. App.3d 1033, 493 N.E.2d 1171, Web 1986 Ill. App. Lexis 2287

(Appellate Court of Illinois) 26.5 Consumer Leasing Joyce Givens entered into a rental agreement with Rent-A-Center, Inc. (Rent-A-Center), whereby she rented a bar and an entertainment center. The agreement provided that she must pay in advance to keep the furniture for periods of one week or one month. Givens could terminate the agreement at any time by making arrangements for the furniture’s return. Givens made payments for four months. After that, she failed to make any further payments but continued to posses the property. When Rent-A-Center became aware that Givens had moved and taken the furniture with her, in violation of the rental agreement, it filed a criminal complaint against her. Thereafter, Givens agreed to return the furniture, and Rent-A-Center dropped the charges. After Rent-A-Center recovered the furniture, Givens sued the company, claiming that the agreement she had signed violated the Consumer Leasing Act. Who wins? Givens v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 720 F.Supp. 160, Web 1988 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16039 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama) 26.7 Fair Debt Collection Stanley M. Juras was a student at Montana State University (MSU). During his four years at MSU, Juras took out several student loans from the school under the National Direct Student Loan program. By the time Juras left MSU, he owed the school more than \$5,000. Juras defaulted on these loans, and MSU assigned the debt to Aman Collection Services, Inc. (Aman), for purposes of collection. Aman obtained a judgment against Juras in a Montana state court for \$5,015 on the debt and \$1,920 in interest and attorneys’ fees. Juras, who at the time lived in California, still refused to pay these amounts. Subsequently, a vice president of Aman, Mr. Gloss, telephoned Juras twice in California before 8:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time. Gloss told Juras that if he did not pay the debt, he would not receive a college transcript. Juras sued Aman, claiming that the telephone calls violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gloss testified at trial that he made the calls before 8:00 A.M. because he had forgotten the difference in time zones between California and Aman’s offices in South Dakota. Who wins? Juras v. Aman Collection Services, Inc., 829 F.2d 739, Web 1987 U.S. App. Lexis 12888 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) 27.1 Financing Statement C&H Trucking, Inc. (C&H), borrowed \$19,747.56 from S&D Petroleum Company, Inc. (S&D). S&D hired Clifton M. Tamsett to prepare a security agreement naming C&H as the debtor and giving S&D a security interest in a new Mack truck. The security agreement prepared by Tamsett declared that the collateral also secured: any other indebtedness or liability of the debtor to the secured party direct or indirect, absolute or contingent, due or to become due, now existing or hereafter arising, including all future advances or loans which may be made at the option of the secured party. Tamsett failed to file a financing statement or the executed agreement with the appropriate government office. C&H subsequently paid off the original debt, and S&D continued to extend new credit to C&H. Two years later, when C&H owed S&D

more than \$17,000, S&D learned that (1) C&H was insolvent, (2) the Mack truck had been sold, and (3) Tamsett had failed to file the security agreement. Does S&D have a security interest in the Mack truck? Is Tamsett liable to S&D? S&D Petroleum Company, Inc. v. Tamsett, 144 A.D.2d 849, 534 N.Y.S.2d 800, Web 1988 N.Y.App. Div. Lexis 11258 (Supreme Court of New York) 27.2 Priority of Security Agreements World Wide Tracers, Inc. (World Wide), sold certain of its assets and properties, including equipment, furniture, uniforms, accounts receivable, and contract rights, to Metropolitan Protection, Inc. (Metropolitan). To secure payment of the purchase price, Metropolitan executed a security agreement and financing statement in favor of World Wide. The agreement, which was filed with the Minnesota secretary of state, stated that ―all of the property listed on Exhibit A (equipment, furniture, and fixtures) together with any property of the debtor acquired after‖ the agreement was executed was collateral. One and one-half years later, State Bank (Bank) loaned money to Metropolitan, which executed a security agreement and financing statement in favor of Bank. Bank filed the financing statement with the Minnesota secretary of state’s office one month later. The financing statement contained the following language describing the collateral: ―All accounts receivable and contract rights owned or hereafter acquired. All equipment now owned and hereafter acquired, including but not limited to, office furniture and uniforms.‖ When Metropolitan defaulted on its agreement with World Wide six months later, World Wide brought suit, asserting its alleged security agreement in Metropolitan’s accounts receivable. Bank filed a counterclaim, asserting its perfected security interest in Metropolitan’s accounts receivable. Who wins? World Wide Tracers, Inc. v. Metropolitan 27.4 Priority of Security Interests Paul High purchased various items of personal property and livestock from William and Marilyn McGowen. To secure the purchase price, High granted the Mc-Gowens a security interest in the personal property and livestock. Two and one-half months later, High borrowed \$86,695 from Nebraska State Bank (Bank) and signed a promissory note, granting Bank a security interest in all his farm products, including but not limited to all his livestock. Bank immediately perfected its security agreement by filing a financing statement with the county clerk in Dakota County, Nebraska. The McGowens perfected their security interest by filing a financing statement and security agreement with the county clerk three months after the Bank filed its financing statement. Three years later, High defaulted on the obligations owed to the McGowens and Bank. Whose security interest has priority? McGowen v. Nebraska State Bank, 229 Neb. 471, 427 N.W.2d 772, Web 1988 Neb. Lexis 290 (Supreme Court of Nebraska) 27.5 Purchase Money Security Interest Prior Brothers, Inc. (PBI) began financing its farming operations through Bank of California, N.A. (Bank). Bank’s loans were secured by PBI’s equipment and after-acquired property. Bank immediately filed a financing statement, perfecting its

recover the cash found in Fuentes’s apartment. The state of Florida intervened in the case, also claiming an interest in the money. Who wins? State of Florida v. Green, 456 So.2d 1309, Web 1984 Fla.App. Lexis 15340 (Court of Appeal of Florida) 50.1 Exclusion from Insurance Policy Richard Usher’s home was protected by a homeowners’ policy issued by National American Insurance Company of California. The policy included personal liability insurance. A provision in the policy read: ―Personal liability and coverage do not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of a motor vehicle owned or operated by, or rented or loaned to any insured.‖ Usher parked a Chevrolet van he owned in his driveway. He left the van’s side door open while he loaded the van in preparation for a camping trip. While Usher was inside his house, several children, including 2-year-old Graham Coburn, began playing near the van. One of the children climbed into the driver’s seat and moved the shift lever from park to reverse. The van rolled backward, crushing Coburn and killing him. Coburn’s parents sued Usher for negligence. Is the accident covered by Usher’s homeowners’ policy? National American Insurance Company of California v. Coburn, 209 Cal. App.3d 914, 257 Cal.Rptr. 591, Web 1989 Cal.App. Lexis 356 (Court of Appeal of California) 50.6 Malpractice Insurance Donald Barker, a wealthy Oregon resident, went to the law firm Winokur, Schoenberg, Maier, Hamerman& Knudson to have his estate planned. An attorney at the firm repeatedly told Barker that he could convey half of his \$20-million estate to his wife tax free under Oregon’s marital deduction. Barker had his will drawn based on the law firm’s advice. It was not until after Barker died three years later that Barker’s family learned that Oregon does not recognize the marital deduction. As a result, the will’s beneficiaries were subject to significant estate taxes. The beneficiaries sued the law firm for negligence, and the case was settled for \$2 million. At the time Barker was being advised by the law firm, it had a professional malpractice insurance policy with the Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) that covered ―all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of any act or omission of the insured arising out of the performance of professional services for others in the insured’s capacity as a lawyer.‖ The policy expired one year prior to Barker’s death. Is Travelers liable for the \$2 million settlement? Travelers Insurance Company v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, 207 Cal. App.3d 1390, 255 Cal.Rptr. 727, Web 1989 Cal.App. Lexis 130 (Court of Appeal of California) 50.7 Duty to Defend When Michael A. Jaffe, a child psychiatrist practicing in California, was accused of Medi–Cal fraud and theft, he requested that his malpractice insurer, Cranford Insurance Company (Cranford), provide his criminal defense. Cranford refused to defend Jaffe, citing the terms of Jaffe’s malpractice insurance policy. The policy describes the insured risk as ―psychiatrist’s professional liability in respect of insured’s practice of psychiatry.‖