Question

On 18 July 2022, the release of a far superior and cheaper product by a competitor...

On 18 July 2022, the release of a far superior and cheaper product by a competitor caused a major decline in demand for Monty Ltd’s Product X. In an effort to sell remaining stock of the product, Monty Ltd has reduced its selling price to 50% of cost. Inventories on hand at 30 June 2022 were recorded at their cost of $400 000. Required:Provide the adjustment journal entry as at 30 June 2022.

Business   Accounting   
0 0
Add a commentTranscribed image text
Next >

Homework Answers

Answer #1

0 0
Know the answer?
Your Answer:

Post as a guest

Your Name:

What's your source?

Earn Coins

Coins can be redeemed for fabulous gifts.

Log In

Sign Up

Not the answer you're looking for?
Ask your own homework help question
Similar Questions
Selene Ltd is a major Australian manufacturer of women’s clothing. Selene Ltd acquired on 1 July...
Selene Ltd is a major Australian manufacturer of women’s clothing. Selene Ltd acquired on 1 July 2016 all the issued shares (cum-div.) of Marcus Ltd, a competitor, for $330 000. At this date, the equity of Marcus Ltd was as follows: SHARE CAPITAL $200,000 RETAINED EARNINGS $50,000 GENERAL RESERVE $20,000 All the identifiable assets and liabilities of Marcus Ltd were recorded at amounts equal to their fair values except for the following: Carrying Amount Fair Value Plant (cost $220,000) $180,000...
Emerald Ltd, a manufacturing company, commenced operations on 1 July 2016 by issuing 350 000 $5.00...
Emerald Ltd, a manufacturing company, commenced operations on 1 July 2016 by issuing 350 000 $5.00 shares, payable in full on application on a first-come, first-served basis. By 31 July 2016 the shares were fully subscribed and duly allotted. There were share issue costs of $10 000. No additional shares were issued during the year ending 30 June 2017. For the year ending 30 June 2018, the company recorded the following aggregate transactions: $ Sales 5 120 000 Interest income...
Hahndorf Ltd acquired 100% of the shares of Sarina Ltd on 1 July 2015 for $700,000,...
Hahndorf Ltd acquired 100% of the shares of Sarina Ltd on 1 July 2015 for $700,000, when the equity of Sarina Ltd consisted of: Share Capital                              $500,000 General Reserve                             80,000 Retained Earnings                          30,000 All identifiable assets and liabilities of Sarina Ltd were fairly valued at acquisition except the machinery, which had a fair value of $140,000. The machinery had a further 7-year life with depreciation based on the straight-line method. Selected financial information for both companies at 30 June 2018...
Hahndorf Ltd acquired 100% of the shares of Sarina Ltd on 1 July 2015 for $700,000,...
Hahndorf Ltd acquired 100% of the shares of Sarina Ltd on 1 July 2015 for $700,000, when the equity of Sarina Ltd consisted of: Share Capital                                  $500,000 General Reserve                                 80,000 Retained Earnings                             30,000 All identifiable assets and liabilities of Sarina Ltd were fairly valued at acquisition except the machinery, which had a fair value of $140,000. The machinery had a further 7-year life with depreciation based on the straight-line method. Selected financial information for both companies at 30 June 2018...
Hahndorf Ltd acquired 100% of the shares of Sarina Ltd on 1 July 2015 for $700,000,...
Hahndorf Ltd acquired 100% of the shares of Sarina Ltd on 1 July 2015 for $700,000, when the equity of Sarina Ltd consisted of: Share Capital                                  $500,000 General Reserve                                 80,000 Retained Earnings                             30,000 All identifiable assets and liabilities of Sarina Ltd were fairly valued at acquisition except the machinery, which had a fair value of $140,000. The machinery had a further 7-year life with depreciation based on the straight-line method. Selected financial information for both companies at 30 June 2018...
In February 2012, the Pepsi Next product was launched into the US market. This case study...
In February 2012, the Pepsi Next product was launched into the US market. This case study provides students with an interesting insight into PepsiCo’s new product process and some of the challenging decisions that they faced along the way. Pepsi Next Case Study Introduction Pepsi Next was launched by PepsiCo into the US market in February 2012, and has since been rolled out to various international markets (for instance, it was launched in Australia in September 2012). The new product...
Exercise 8-1 Schedule of Expected Cash Collections [LO8-2] Silver Company makes a product that is very...
Exercise 8-1 Schedule of Expected Cash Collections [LO8-2] Silver Company makes a product that is very popular as a Mother’s Day gift. Thus, peak sales occur in May of each year, as shown in the company’s sales budget for the second quarter given below: April May June Total Budgeted sales (all on account) $440,000 $640,000 $220,000 $1,300,000 From past experience, the company has learned that 30% of a month’s sales are collected in the month of sale, another 60% are...
Sign In INNOVATION Deep Change: How Operational Innovation Can Transform Your Company by Michael Hammer From...
Sign In INNOVATION Deep Change: How Operational Innovation Can Transform Your Company by Michael Hammer From the April 2004 Issue Save Share 8.95 In 1991, Progressive Insurance, an automobile insurer based in Mayfield Village, Ohio, had approximately $1.3 billion in sales. By 2002, that figure had grown to $9.5 billion. What fashionable strategies did Progressive employ to achieve sevenfold growth in just over a decade? Was it positioned in a high-growth industry? Hardly. Auto insurance is a mature, 100-year-old industry...
During the trial, lawyers for the accused said that the men believed that the accounting decisions...
During the trial, lawyers for the accused said that the men believed that the accounting decisions they made were appropriate at the time, and that the accounting treatment was approved by Nortel’s auditors from Deloitte & Touche. Judge Marrocco accepted these arguments. Marrocco added he was “not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt” that the trio (i.e., Dunn, Beatty, and Gollogly) had “deliberately misrepresented” financial results. Given the facts of the case, do you believe Judge Marrocco’s decision was justified? Explain....
1. The failure of the new supply chain system affected Nike adversely. What were the reasons...
1. The failure of the new supply chain system affected Nike adversely. What were the reasons for the failure and how did the breakdown harm Nike? 2. What are the important elements to be kept in mind while implementing a new system in an organization? What is the importance of a good working relationship between partners and the sharing of responsibility in implementing critical projects? What mistakes did Nike and i2 make? 3. comment on the lessons learned and the...
ADVERTISEMENT
Need Online Homework Help?

Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.

Ask a Question
ADVERTISEMENT