Jaidyn Leskie Case Essay Example

Jaidyn Leskie Case Essay Example Jaidyn Leskie Case Paper Jaidyn Leskie Case Paper I. The Main Facts of the Case The main facts of the Jaidyn Leskie case are as follows: ?Jaidyn Leskie disappeared while in the care of Greg Domaszewicz on the night of 14 June 1997. ?Mr. Domaszewicz said that Jaidyn went missing after being left asleep at his house while he went out to pick up the child’s mother. ?On the night of Jaidyn’s disappearance a pig’s head and rocks were thrown at the windows of Greg Domaszewicz’s house. ?Senior Constable Evans said he could find no evidence that anyone entered the windows. A teenage boy discovered the boy’s body on 1 January 1998, at the Blue Rock Dam. A small sleeping bag with a crowbar tied to it and a plastic bag containing baby’s clothes, a bib, elastic-sided boots, a baby’s bottle and an apple were found in the dam. ?Dr Shelly Robertson, a senior forensic pathologist who performed an autopsy on Jaidyn, said that the boy probably died from a direct blow to the head while he was in extreme pain from a fractured left arm. II. Outline the Law relating to murder/manslaughter. Explain who has the burden of proof in a trial and outline in general terms what is required to get a conviction in a murder trial. You will need to point out the law here and list and explain the recognised defences available to the accused. In the law, the killing of another person could fall under two categories, one could be murder or it could be manslaughter. Murder is when a person kills another person with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is one of the six principals of criminal liability that the prosecution must prove for someone to be convicted of murder. The principals of criminal liability are as follows: ?The killing was unlawful: this is about if the killing of the person was lawful or not, such as a soldier killing an enemy soldier in battle which is lawful. ?The accused was a person over the age of discretion: this means that only a person over the age of discretion (10 years of age) can commit the crime of murder. ?The victim was a human being. ?The accused was of sound mind: this means that for the crime to be murder, the accused must have been sane at the time of committing the act. The victim’s death was caused by the accused: there must be a causal link between the action/s of the accused and the death of the victim. ?Malice Aforethought: malice aforethought is where the accused must have had the intention of committing the crime (mens rea). For malice aforethought to exist, the accused must have had one of the following states of mind when committing to the crime: ? An intention to kill. ?An intention to assault a p erson making a lawful arrest, which resulted in their death. ?An intention to cause Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). Or, ?Reckless indifference. On the other hand manslaughter is when there is, in some situations which result in death, but where there was no intention to kill or cause GBH. A person may be charged with manslaughter if their actions fall into one of the following categories: ? The accused intentionally inflicts harm. ?The accused’s actions/inactions fall below the expected level of care ? The accused’s actions were unlawful. In defence to the charge of murder the accused could use one of the following defences: ? Self-defence: to be acquitted of murder the accused must prove he/she: ? ad the belief that it was necessary to act to defend themselves or another person. ?had reasonable grounds for this belief. ?Duress: duress is where a person committed murder while under the impression that if they did not commit the crime they or someone else would be seriously harmed. ?Mental Impairment: the accused was unable to understand the consequences of their actions or was beyond reason. III. In the Domasze wicz trial, outline the role of the police throughout the whole episode. Detail the key arguments/evidence of the defence and of the prosecution. The role of the police throughout the Domaszewicz case was as follows: ? To investigate the suspicious death of Jaidyn Leskie. ?To question Mr. Domaszewicz, the prime suspect. ?Breath-test Mr. Domaszewicz when he was pulled over. Evidence/Arguments for the Prosecution. ?Greg Domaszewicz collects Jaidyn from his mother Bilynda Murphy early in the afternoon. ?Ms Murphy calls Mr. Domaszewicz at his house about 4. 00 p. m. and is told Jaidyn is about to be showered. ?Between 5. 30 and 7. 40 p. m. telephone calls to Mr. Domaszewicz’s home are not answered. At 12. 30 a. m. neighbours who live opposite Ms Murphy allege they see Mr. Domaszewicz’s car stop outside her house. ?At 2. 00 a. m. Ms Murphy calls Mr. Domaszewicz and asks him to collect her from Ryan’s Hotel in Morwell. ?Around 2. 00 a. m. a severed pig’s head and stones are thrown at Mr. Domaszewicz’s house. ?Between 2. 20 and 2. 40 a. m. Mr Domaszewicz picks Ms Murphy up in his car and they drive to his house. On the way he says Jaidyn is in hospital with burns. ?At 3. 20 a. m. Mr. Domaszewicz drops Ms Murphy at her home. ?At 3. 35 a. . Mr. Domaszewicz is breath-tested by police and says nothing about an abducted child. ?At 5. 00 a. m. Mr. Domaszewicz drives to Ms Murphy’s home and tells her Jaidyn has been abducted. Evidence/Arguments for the Defence. ?A time, place, manner or reason for the death of Jaidyn had not yet been established. ?Jaidyn’s body was found on New Year’s Day 1998, in a sleeping bag, weighted down by a crowbar, almost six months after Jaidyn’s disappearance. ?DNA testing of the sleeping bag suggested that it was in the dam for no more than two months. According to senior defence counsel at the trial, Mr. Colin Lovitt QC, there was insufficient time for Mr. Domaszewicz to take Jaidyn’s body to the Blue Rock Dam where he was found, and return in time to inform Ms Murphy of the disappearance. ?The police maintained that he had fallen in the water when he dumped the body, which explained his wet wallet and money found by the police. If this were the case, he would have had to return home and change his clothes before going to Ms Murphy’s home. ?Jaidyn’s blood was not found in Mr. Domaszewicz’s house or car. A concern to the police was Mr. Domaszewicz’s statement to Jaidyn’s mother that Jaidyn was in the hospital. Mr. Domaszewicz claimed that this was a joke. ?Mr. Lovitt said that he was known for his practical joking. IV. Do you think the accused should have been allowed to remain silent at the trial? Explain. The right to silence is a right that everyone has that will help some people from saying things that they shouldn’t, when being questions by the police the only question that you have to answer are, â€Å"what is your name? † and â€Å"where do you live? other than that you do not have to answer anything. The police are supposed to tell you that you have to right to remain silent along with the other right that you have. No, I do not think that the accused should be have been able to remain silent at the trial, because at the trial that is where all the truth should come out and if the accused is able to stay silent during the trial then there is no chance to get the totally truth, and in trial the accused is sworn in and must tell the truth and in statement they may lie and only tell the truth if found out. V. Why do you think bail was not granted in this case? When a person is charged with a serious offence, the police have two choices, one is to release the accused on bail until the time of the trial, or if there is too much of a risk that the accused will not turn up for the trial then the police can ask a bail justice and/or the Magistrates’ Court to remand the accused in custody. Bail is the release of a person from legal custody on the understanding that they will appear at their hearing or trial. Bail can be granted by a senior police officer, a bail justice, a Magistrates’ Court registrar or a court (usually the Magistrates’ Court). A bail justice is a person who has been appointed to deal with bail applications. Bail is usually granted because of the fact that the legal system says that everyone accused of a crime is to be perceived innocent until proven guilt. Bail may be refused: ? Where the accused person is charged with murder, treason or drug trafficking ? If the accused person is in custody for some other offence ? If the accused person is in custody for failing to answer bail ? If the court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused person, if released on bail, would: ?Fail to answer bail ?Commit an offence whilst on bail ?Endanger the safety or welfare of members of the public ?Interfere with witnesses ?Obstruct the course of justice, either in relation to him/herself or to others. Bail was not granted to Mr. Domaszewicz because he was charged with murder and because of the type of crime that he was accused of. VI. Explain the process of a committal hearing. Committal hearings are held in the Magistrates’ Court before a case is tried in the County Court or Supreme Court. Their purpose is to find out if a prima facie case exists, that is, whether the police evidence is of sufficient weight to support a conviction. If there is enough evidence to support a conviction then the accused then goes to trial. Under the amendments, preparation of a hand-up brief (where evidence is presented in written form) is the norm. Committal hearings can have a number of stages. ?Special Mention hearing In the hearing the court sets a timetable for the proceedings. If the accused pleads guilt to all charges then the magistrate commits the accused to trail in the County or Supreme Courts based on the evidence in the plea brief (a summary of charges and evidence). If the defendant does not plead guilt or does not enter a plea, then the prosecution must prepare a hand-up brief containing all the evidence, including witness statements, interview transcripts, documents, photos and a list of exhibits. ?Committal Mention Hearing The defendant receives the hand-up brief prior to this hearing and both parties then submit a direction notice indicating their intention to question witnesses or seek an adjournment. VII. Do you think the double jeopardy rule should be abolished? Discuss In my opinion the rule on double jeopardy should be abolished because although it protects the innocent from being prosecuted, it also protects criminals that have been let of for that crime from being tried again if new evidence has come up linking them to the crime. The double jeopardy rule should only be abolished with strict guidelines which ensure that the reason that it was first installed for still applies (to protect the innocent). One way that we could do this is by not completely abolishing the double jeopardy rule, instead just change it so that the double jeopardy rule still applies but with one small change, that a person acquitted of an indictable offence can only be re-tried if there is new evidence that connects the accused to the crime unquestionably. VIII. Discuss the outcome. Was justice done? Give your opinion on the events and point out any inconsistencies/problems surrounding the case. In my opinion justice was not done, because after the trial Bilynda Murphy, the mother of Jaidyn, ask for a full inquest to be held into the death of her son, to try and find out what happened to him, and in this inquest it was found that Greg Domaszewicz, although found innocent of his murder, was said to have played some part in the child’s death, if not being to direct cause of it. Being the last person to see Jaidyn alive, and to have left Jaidyn alone in his house, and then saying that he had been abducted, Greg Domaszewicz should have been able to help police find out what happened to Jaidyn. Mr. Domaszewicz while taking Ms. Murphy home from the Ryan’s Hotel, he tell her that Jaidyn is in hospital burns, which was played off as joke by Mr. Domaszewicz and his lawyer, but what person in their right mind would make a joke like that to a mother who is clearly intoxicated, that statement was not a joke, that was Mr. Domaszewicz trying to make up a plausible story to use as a cover-up for his crime, but when he saw that that story wasn’t a plausible one, he decided to make up another story, about Jaidyn being abducted. And the Pig’s Head group was a likely group to set up, since they, on the night of the crime, threw a pig’s head through the window of Mr. Domaszewicz’s house. But although the story might have been good in theory it was not so good in real life, because when they were questioned about the disappearance of Jaidyn Leskie they admitted completely about throwing the pig’s head through the window but strong denied that they had anything to do with the disappearance of Jaidyn, and said that they only threw the pig’s head through the window of Mr. Domaszewicz’s house but did not enter the house at all, and this was supported by the evidence, because no evidence was found that suggest, even in the slightest, that someone entered the house through the broken window. The defence argued that Mr. Domaszewicz could not have made it to the Blue Rock dam to dump the body, and then come back to tell Ms. Murphy that he son was missing, but how does that defence argue about his pants being wet from the waist down and his wet wallet that was handed to police when Mr. Domaszewicz was pulled over for a breath-test. All the evidence was there but was not acted upon. Although the case was weak, the was still evidence linking Mr. Domaszewicz to Jaidyn’s death and after the inquest it showed that he did play a part in the death of the child, he was the last to see Jaidyn, he was left in his house, if this was not murder then he should get charged with something because, he may not have been the direct cause of the child’s death but he most likely played a part in it.

Human Liver Anatomy and Function

Human Liver Anatomy and Function The liver is an important vital organ that also happens to be the largest internal organ in the body. Weighing between 3 and 3.5 pounds, the liver is located in the upper right area of the abdominal cavity and is responsible for hundreds of different functions. Some of these functions include nutrient metabolism, detoxification of harmful substances, and protecting the body from germs. The liver has a unique ability to regenerate itself. This ability makes it possible for individuals to donate part of their liver for transplantation. Liver Anatomy The liver is a reddish-brown organ that is located below the diaphragm and superior to other abdominal cavity organs such as the stomach, kidneys, gallbladder, and intestines. The most prominent feature of the liver is its larger right lobe and smaller left lobe. These two main lobes are separated by a band of connective tissue. Each liver lobe is internally composed of thousands of smaller units called lobules. Lobules are small liver segments containing arteries, veins, sinusoids, bile ducts, and liver cells. Liver tissue is composed of two main types of cells. Hepatocytes are the most numerous type of liver cells. These epithelial cells are responsible for most of the functions performed by the liver. Kupffer cells are immune cells that are also found in the liver. They are thought to be a type of macrophage that rids the body of pathogens and old red blood cells. The liver also contains numerous bile ducts, which drain bile produced by the liver into larger hepatic ducts. These ducts join to form the common hepatic duct. The cystic duct extending from the gallbladder joins the common hepatic duct to form the common bile duct. Bile from the liver and gallbladder drain into the common bile duct and are delivered to the upper portion of the small intestines (duodenum). Bile is a dark greenish or yellow fluid produced by the liver and stored in the gallbladder. It aids in the digestion of fats and helps eliminate toxic wastes. Liver Function The liver performs a number of vital functions in the body. A major function of the liver is to process substances in the blood. The liver receives blood from organs including the stomach, small intestines, spleen, pancreas, and gallbladder through the hepatic portal vein. The liver then processes, filters, and detoxifies the blood before sending it back to the heart via the inferior vena cava. The liver has a digestive system, immune system, endocrine system, and exocrine functions. A number of important liver functions are listed below. 1) Fat Digestion A key function of the liver is the digestion of fats. Bile produced by the liver breaks down fat in the small intestines so that it can be used for energy. 2) Metabolism The liver metabolizes carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids in the blood that are initially processed during digestion. Hepatocytes store glucose obtained from the break down of carbohydrates in the foods we eat. Excess glucose is removed from the blood and stored as glycogen in the liver. When glucose is needed, the liver breaks down glycogen into glucose and releases the sugar into the blood. The liver metabolizes amino acids from digested proteins. In the process, toxic ammonia is produced which the liver converts to urea. Urea is transported to the blood and is passed to the kidneys where it is excreted in urine. The liver processes fats to produce other lipids including phospholipids and cholesterol. These substances are necessary for cell membrane production, digestion, bile acid formation, and hormone production. The liver also metabolizes hemoglobin, chemicals, medications, alcohol and other drugs in the blood. 3) Nutrient Storage The liver stores nutrients obtained from the blood for use when needed. Some of these substances include glucose, iron, copper, vitamin B12, vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin K (helps blood to clot), and vitamin B9 (aids in red blood cell synthesis). 4) Synthesis and Secretion The liver synthesizes and secretes plasma proteins that act as clotting factors and help to maintain proper blood fluid balance. The blood protein fibrinogen produced by the liver is converted to fibrin, a sticky fibrous mesh that traps platelets and other blood cells. Another clotting factor produced by the liver, prothrombin, is needed to convert fibrinogen to fibrin. The liver also produces a number of carrier proteins including albumin, which transports substances such as hormones, fatty acids, calcium, bilirubin, and various drugs. Hormones are also synthesized and secreted by the liver when needed. Liver-synthesized hormones include insulin-like growth factor 1, which aids in early growth and development. Thrombopoietin is a hormone that regulates platelet production in bone marrow. 5)Immune Defense The K​upffer cells of the liver filter the blood of pathogens such as bacteria, parasites, and fungi. They also rid the body of old blood cells, dead cells, cancer cells, and cellular refuse. Harmful substances and waste products are secreted by the liver into either the bile or the blood. Substances secreted into bile are eliminated from the body through the digestive tract. Substances secreted into the blood are filtered by the kidneys and excreted in urine.

Research Brief for HR Development Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Research Brief for HR Development - Essay Example Training employees on team building will improve their skills, knowledge and attitudes in the workplace especially for a certain task. It will also make the employees open to each other thus increasing the confidence at work place. â€Å"The make versus Buy† decisions are the best available resources that HRD will use in the program. These includes resources that will be use to assist with conducting needs assessment, guiding the employees in implementing the program, provision of supplemental training materials and selecting a trainer who will train the employees (Lee & Bruvold, 2003). Therefore, in the selection of a trainer it is important for HRD to outsource because most of the time the organizations do not have the expertise of designing the programs in-house. The trainer may be outsourced from a consulting firm and selecting in terms of credentials, experience, cost, and philosophy. Objectives must be set in order to show the performance in which the HRD wants its employees to achieve and exhibit before they consider them as competent. The trainer should have knowledge and varied skills that are designed and implemented in the program. When the trainer prepares an advanced level of expertise, the train will be an effective one. It is good to use different training methods and techniques. The trainer translates the objectives of the program in an executable training session and a training guide in order for the team-building program to success (Lee & Bruvold, 2003). In summary, activities that are involved in the implementation processes of an HRD program such as team building include assessing the needs of employees and areas that need development to better serve the needs. The second phase is that HRD is to design the intended benefits of the program, which include performance improvement and behaviour change of the employees (Vinaya, Mahatab & Kumar, 2013). The final activity is to

What do you expect to get from your electives for your subject Essay

What do you expect to get from your electives for your subject - Essay Example All of these categories are essential to our learning. Our minor courses serve as refreshment for us not to forget the basic know how of education. They are like touches of the foundation of every aspect of study. Our major subjects are essential for us to master our chosen fields of study. Finally, we have our elective subjects which give us additional knowledge and make us understand our major field better. To begin discussing what an elective subject is, let me begin with its brief definition. Elective subjects are subjects that a student chooses to deepen knowledge or skill in a particular area. This can be from another related major (UTS: Engineering FAQ, 2007). From this definition, we can conclude why students need to take up elective subjects. It is a well known fact that every field of knowledge is interrelated and interconnected with each other. Therefore, one should have an understanding of the different areas in connection with his/her major. This will give a person a wider perception of things he/she should be acquainted with in his area of specialization. As an example, you cannot expect someone to be a good doctor in the future without the basic understanding of anatomy or a background about biology. This is true in any other areas of study whether it is in the field of science or engineering. With regards to my course, I would like to extract it from point to point. The definition of Mechanical Engineering is the broadest among all other kinds of engineering (â€Å"What is†). The simplest and shortest, on the other hand, that can be found on any other internet site is the application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems (â€Å"Engineering†). It sounds simple as it seems from the definition. On the contrary, this major is interconnected and interrelated to all

History of Blackpool - growth and decline Essay Example for Free

History of Blackpool growth and decline Essay For the majority of the 19th century Blackpool was a small fishing village, which received small numbers of upper class visitors who came due to the supposed healing capabilities of the coast, and its fresh air. This changed in 1846 with the creation of a railway line going up to Blackpool, which made travel to the area cheap and affordable for the public. The majority of those who decided to visit Blackpool were factory workers and their families who came from cities like Liverpool and Manchester. Due to air travel being very expensive at the time and only the rich could afford to go abroad. Blackpool became the destination to go to for the working class during their holidays. Blackpool recognised their popularity and over the years constructed three new piers to house new attractions. Three new piers were constructed, named the North, Central and South Piers and were constructed in 1863, 1868 and 1893 respectively. The Winter Gardens, which was effectively an indoor mall, was set up in 1878 and housed an opera house and a theatre. The Blackpool Illuminations, which were put up a year later, and the Blackpool Tower, built in 1894, which housed a Ballroom, Circus Hall and an Aquarium, accompanied this. Due to all these attractions Blackpool became a major tourist destination. In 1930 7 million tourists came to the area and this number increased to 17 million in 1950. Blackpool’s Decline Blackpool began to enter its decline period during the mid 20th century onwards. During this time the disposable income and free time of workers started to increase. This combined with cheaper air flight tickets and package holidays meant that people could go abroad for the first time in their lives. France and Spain were the most popular destinations and over the years started to gain more and more tourists. This took away from the number of people visiting Blackpool. As an attempt to claw back tourists hotels and restaurants in the area started to dramatically decrease their prices with the aim of attracting more tourists. This ended up having the opposite effect. While more tourists did come to the area, they were more downmarket than what Blackpool used to receive. The new crowds attracted by Blackpool were seen as antisocial and unpleasant and removed the family friendly nature associated with Blackpool. The loss of families as potential tourists was a major blow to Blackpool and further added to its decline. Blackpool’s Rejuvenation Recently Blackpool has made attempts to restore its status as a popular tourist destination. Winter Gardens was bought from its private owners and brought back into the public market and a contract with Merlin was made to include the Blackpool Tower with its other hosts of amusement parks. Additionally ? 300 million was spent in improving the state of Blackpools infrastructure. While the effort is helping Blackpool it isnt increasing its status as a tourist destination. Instead of entering Rejuvenation Blackpool has entered a state of slowed decline.

Nathaniel Hawthornes Scarlet Letter - Effects of Sin Upon Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale :: Scarlet Letter essays

The Effects of Sin Upon Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter Hawthorn shows sins of several different kinds in numerous people, as well as the consequences and remedies of their sins. Three main characters; Hester Prynne, Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale, and Roger Chillingworth bare the most of these sins. Arthur Dimmesdale, however, bares the most brutal effects of such sin. This is due to several reasons. The most observable reason for his eventual breakdown is the fact that he keeps his sin a secret. Arthur Dimmesdale's sin was the same as Hester's, except he never confessed. "As God's servant, it is his nature to tell the truth, so the years of pretending and hypocrisy were especially hard on him." (Bloom 28) Dimmesdale also believes that his sin has taken the meaning out of his life. His life's work has been dedicated to God, and now his sin has tainted it. He feels that he is a fraud and is not fit to lead the people of the town to salvation. His secret guilt a much heavier burden than Hester's since he must hold it all within himself. This also reveals Dimmesdale weakness. Arthur wanted desperately to admit his sin to the world, which is shown throughout the book. The earliest incident was when he was asked to question Hester on the scaffold as to who the father of her child was: "I charge thee to speak out the name of the thy fellow-sinner and fellow sufferer! Be not silent for any mistaken pity and tenderness for him; for, believe me, Hester, though he were to step down from a high place, and stand there beside thee, on thy pedestal of shame, yet better were it so, than to hide a guilty heart throughout life." (Hawthorne 67) In this speech Dimmesdale is pleading for her to tell the name of the father, and fellow sinner, not just for the other leaders sake, but for his own. He is to weak minded to do it himself, and he believes it would be better to lose his place of power in the church than to "hide his guilty heart." Since he was not revealed, this is exactly what he does, hides his guilty heart. In view of the fact that there was no external punishment for Arthur, he creates it within himself. Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter - Effects of Sin Upon Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale :: Scarlet Letter essays The Effects of Sin Upon Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter Hawthorn shows sins of several different kinds in numerous people, as well as the consequences and remedies of their sins. Three main characters; Hester Prynne, Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale, and Roger Chillingworth bare the most of these sins. Arthur Dimmesdale, however, bares the most brutal effects of such sin. This is due to several reasons. The most observable reason for his eventual breakdown is the fact that he keeps his sin a secret. Arthur Dimmesdale's sin was the same as Hester's, except he never confessed. "As God's servant, it is his nature to tell the truth, so the years of pretending and hypocrisy were especially hard on him." (Bloom 28) Dimmesdale also believes that his sin has taken the meaning out of his life. His life's work has been dedicated to God, and now his sin has tainted it. He feels that he is a fraud and is not fit to lead the people of the town to salvation. His secret guilt a much heavier burden than Hester's since he must hold it all within himself. This also reveals Dimmesdale weakness. Arthur wanted desperately to admit his sin to the world, which is shown throughout the book. The earliest incident was when he was asked to question Hester on the scaffold as to who the father of her child was: "I charge thee to speak out the name of the thy fellow-sinner and fellow sufferer! Be not silent for any mistaken pity and tenderness for him; for, believe me, Hester, though he were to step down from a high place, and stand there beside thee, on thy pedestal of shame, yet better were it so, than to hide a guilty heart throughout life." (Hawthorne 67) In this speech Dimmesdale is pleading for her to tell the name of the father, and fellow sinner, not just for the other leaders sake, but for his own. He is to weak minded to do it himself, and he believes it would be better to lose his place of power in the church than to "hide his guilty heart." Since he was not revealed, this is exactly what he does, hides his guilty heart. In view of the fact that there was no external punishment for Arthur, he creates it within himself.

Spoilage, Rework, and Scrap

Managers have found that improved quality and intolerance for high spoilage have lowered overall costs and increased sales. 18-2Spoilage—units of production that do not meet the standards required by customers for good units and that are discarded or sold at reduced prices. Rework—units of production that do not meet the specifications required by customers but which are subsequently repaired and sold as good finished units. Scrap—residual material that results from manufacturing a product. It has low total sales value compared to the total sales value of the product. 8-3Yes. Normal spoilage is spoilage inherent in a particular production process that arises even under efficient operating conditions. Management decides the spoilage rate it considers normal depending on the production process. 18-4Abnormal spoilage is spoilage that is not inherent in a particular production process and would not arise under efficient operating conditions. Costs of abnormal spoilag e are â€Å"lost costs,† measures of inefficiency that should be written off directly as losses for the accounting period. 18-5Management effort can affect the spoilage rate.Many companies are relentlessly reducing their rates of normal spoilage, spurred on by competitors who, likewise, are continuously reducing costs. 18-6Normal spoilage typically is expressed as a percentage of good units passing the inspection point. Given actual spoiled units, we infer abnormal spoilage as follows: Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage – Normal spoilage 18-7Accounting for spoiled goods deals with cost assignment, rather than with cost incurrence, because the existence of spoiled goods does not involve any additional cost beyond the amount already incurred. 18-8Yes.Normal spoilage rates should be computed from the good output or from the normal input, not the total input. Normal spoilage is a given percentage of a certain output base. This base should never include abnormal spoilage, which is included in total input. Abnormal spoilage does not vary in direct proportion to units produced, and to include it would cause the normal spoilage count to fluctuate irregularly and not vary in direct proportion to the output base. 18-9Yes, the point of inspection is the key to the assignment of spoilage costs. Normal spoilage costs do not attach solely to units transferred out.Thus, if units in ending work in process have passed inspection, they should have normal spoilage costs added to them. 18-10No. If abnormal spoilage is detected at a different point in the production cycle than normal spoilage, then unit costs would differ. If, however normal and abnormal spoilage are detected at the same point in the production cycle, their unit costs would be the same. 18-11No. Spoilage may be considered a normal characteristic of a given production cycle. The costs of normal spoilage caused by a random malfunction of a machine would be charged as a part of the manufacturing overhe ad allocated to all jobs.Normal spoilage attributable to a specific job is charged to that job. 18-12 No. Unless there are special reasons for charging normal rework to jobs that contained the bad units, the costs of extra materials, labor, and so on are usually charged to manufacturing overhead and allocated to all jobs. 18-13Yes. Abnormal rework is a loss just like abnormal spoilage. By charging it to manufacturing overhead, the abnormal rework costs are spread over other jobs and also included in inventory to the extent a job is not complete. Abnormal rework is rework over and above what is expected during a period, and is recognized as a loss for that period. 8-14A company is justified in inventorying scrap when its estimated net realizable value is significant and the time between storing it and selling or reusing it is quite long. 18-15Company managements measure scrap to measure efficiency and to also control a tempting source of theft. Managements of companies that report hi gh levels of scrap focus attention on ways to reduce scrap and to use the scrap the company generates more profitably. Some companies, for example, might redesign products and processes to reduce scrap. Others may also examine if the scrap can be reused to save substantial input costs. 8-16(5–10 min. ) Normal and abnormal spoilage in units. 1. Total spoiled units12,000 Normal spoilage in units, 5% ( 132,000 6,600 Abnormal spoilage in units 5,400 2. Abnormal spoilage, 5,400 ( $10$ 54,000 Normal spoilage, 6,600 ( $10 66,000 Potential savings, 12,000 ( $10$120,000 Regardless of the targeted normal spoilage, abnormal spoilage is non-recurring and avoidable. The targeted normal spoilage rate is subject to change. Many companies have reduced their spoilage to almost zero, which would realize all potential savings.Of course, zero spoilage usually means higher-quality products, more customer satisfaction, more employee satisfaction, and various beneficial effects on nonmanufacturing (for example, purchasing) costs of direct materials. 18-17(20 min. )Weighted-average method, spoilage, equivalent units. Solution Exhibit 18-17 calculates equivalent units of work done to date for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-17 Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Gray Manufacturing Company for November 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period |10,150a | | | |To account for |11,150 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: |9,000 |9,000 |9,000 | |Normal spoilage* |100 | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |50 | | | |50 ( 100%; 50 (100% | |50 |50 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) |2,000 | | | |2,000 ( 100%; 2,000 ( 30% | |2,000 |600 | |Accounted for 11,150 | | | |Work done to date | |11,150 |9,750 | a From below, 11,150 total units are accounted for. Therefore, units started during current period must be = 11,150 – 1,000 = 10,150. *Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 30%. 18-18(20(25 min. Weighted-average method, assigning costs (continuation of 18-17). Solution Exhibit 18-18 calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-18 Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summari ze Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing, Gray Manufacturing Company, November 2006. |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 2,533 |$ 1,423 |$ 1,110 | |Costs added in current period (given) |39,930 |12,180 |27,750 | |Costs incurred to date | |13,603 |28,860 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |(11,150 |( 9,750 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$ 1. 22 |$ 2. 6 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$42,463 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$37,620 | (9,000# ( $1. 22) + (9,000# ( $2. 96) | |Normal spoilage (100 units) |418 |(100# ( $1. 22) + (100# ( $2. 96) | |(A) Total cost of good units completed & transf. out |38,038 | | |(B) Abnormal spoil age (50 units) |209 |(50# ( $1. 22) + (50# ( $2. 96) | |(C) Work in process, ending (2,000 units) |4,216 |(2,000# ( $1. 22) + (600# ( $2. 6) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$42,463 | | #Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-17. 18-19(15 min. )FIFO method, spoilage, equivalent units. Solution Exhibit 18-19 calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-19 Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Gray Manufacturing Company for November 2006. | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period |10,150a | | | |To account for |11,150 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out duri ng current period: | | | | |From beginning work in process|| |1,000 | | | |1,000 ( (100% (100%); 1,000 ( (100% ( 50%) | |0 |500 | |Started and completed |8,000# | | | |8,000 ( 100%; 8,000 ( 100% | |8,000 |8,000 | |Normal spoilage* |100 | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |50 | | | |50 ( 100%; 50 ( 100% | |50 |50 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |2,000 | | | |2,000 ( 100%; 2,000 ( 30% | |2,000 |600 | |Accounted for |11,150 | | | |Work done in current period only | |10,150 |9,250 | a From below, 11,150 total units are accounted for.Therefore, units started during current period must be 11,150 – 1,000 = 10,150. ||Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 50%. #9,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 1,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work-in-process inventory. *Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion co sts, 100%. † Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 30%. 18-20(20(25 min. )FIFO method, assigning costs (continuation of 18-19).Solution Exhibit 18-20 calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-20 Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit Costs, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; FIFO Method of Process Costing, Gray Manufacturing Company, November 2006. | |Total | | | | Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given: $1 ,423 + $1,110) |$ 2,533 | | | |Costs added in current period (given) |39,930 |$12,180 |$27,750 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in current period | |(10,150 |( 9,250 | |Cost per equivalent unit |______ |$ 1. 0 |$ 3 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$42,463 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (1,000 units) |$ 2,533 | | |Costs added to beg. work in process in current period |1,500 |(0a ( $1. 0) + (500a ( $3) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage (8,000 units) |4,033 | | |Normal spoilage (100 units) |33,600 |(8,000a ( $1. 20) + (8,000a ( $3) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and transferred out |420 |(100a ( $1. 20) + (100a ( $3) | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (50 units) |38,053 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (2,000 units) |210 |(50a ( $1. 0) + (50a ( $3) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |4,200 |(2,000a ( $1. 20) + (60a ( $3) | | |$42,463 | | a Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-19. 18-21(30 min. )Weighted-average method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-21A calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-21A Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Appleton Company for August 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | |Flow of Production |Physical Units|Direct |Conversion | | | |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) | 2,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) |10,000 | | | |To account for | 12,000 | | | |Good units completed and tsfd. out during current period: | 9,000 | 9,000 | 9,000 | |Normal spoilagea | 900 | | | | (900 [pic]100%; 900 [pic]100%) | | 900| 900 | |Abnormal spoilageb 300 | | | | (3 00 [pic]100%; 300 [pic]100%) | | 300| 300 | |Work in process, endingc (given) | 1,800 | | | | (1,800 [pic] 100%; 1,800 [pic] 75%) |______ | 1,800 | 1,350 | |Accounted for | 12,000 | | | |Work done to date | | 12,000 | 11,550 | | | | | | | aNormal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? 9,000 = 900 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | | |bTotal spoilage = Beg. units + Units started – Good units tsfd. out – Ending units = 2,000 + 10,000 – 9,000 – 1,800 = 1,200; | | Abnormal spoilage = Total spoilage – Normal spoilage = 1,200 – 900 = 300 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | |cDegree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 75%. | | | 2 & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-21B calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials a nd conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process, using the weighted-average method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-21B Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing, Appleton Company, August 2006.    |   |Total |Direct |Conversion | | | |Production |Materials |Costs | | | |Costs | | | |(Step 3) |Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 28,600 | $17,700 |$ 10,900 | | |Costs added in current period (given) | 174,300 | 81,300 | 93,000 | | |Costs incurred to date | | $99,000 |$103,900 | | |Divide by equivalent units of work done to date | |[pic]12,000 |[pic]11,550 | | |Cost per equivalent unit | _______ | $ 8. 250 |$ 8. 957 | |(Step 4) |Total costs to account for |$20 2,900 | | | |(Step 5) |Assignment of costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | | | Costs before adding normal spoilage |$155,211 |(9,000d [pic]$8. 25) + (9,000 d | | | | |[pic]$8. 957) | | | Normal spoilage (900 units) | 15,521 |(900d [pic]$8. 25) + (900d [pic]$8. 9957) | |(A) | Total costs of good units completed and transferred out | 170,732 | | | |(B) |Abnormal spoilage (300 units) | 5,174 |(300d [pic] $8. 25) + (300d [pic] $8. 9957) | |(C) |Work in process, ending (1,800 units): | 26,994 |(1,800d [pic]$8. 25) + (1,350d | | | | |[pic]$8. 957) | |(A) + (B) + (C) |Total costs accounted for |$202,900 | | | | | | | | | |dEquivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in step 2 of Solution Exhibit 18-21A. | 18-22 (30 min. )FIFO method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-22A calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-22A Summarize Output in Physi cal Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; FIFO Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Appleton Company for August 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | |Flow of Production |Physical Units |Direct |Conversion Costs | | | |Materials | | |Work in process, beginning (given) | 2,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) | 10,000 | | | |To account for | 12,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during current period: | | | | | From beginning work in process a | 2,000 | | | | [2,000 ? (100% – 100%); 2,000 ? 100% – 50%)] | | 0 | 1,000 | | Started and completed | 7,000b | | | | (7,000 ? 100%; 7,000 ? 100%) | | 7,000 | 7,000 | |Normal spoilagec | 900 | | | | (900 ? 100%; 900 ? 100%) | | 900 | 900 | |Abnormal spoilaged | 300 | | | | (300 ? 100%; 300 ? 00%) | | 300 | 300 | |Work in process, endinge (given) | 1,800 | | | | (1,800 ? 100%; 1,800 ? 75%) | | 1,800 | 1,350 | |Accounted for | 12,000 |_____ | | |Work done in current period only | | 10,000 | 10,550 | | | | | | | a Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 50%. | b 9,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 2,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning | | work-in-process inventory. | | c Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? 9,000 = 900 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this | | department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | d Total spoilage = Beg. units + Units started – Good units tsfd. Out – ending units = 2,000 + 10,000 – 9,000 – 1,800 = 1,200 | | Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage – Normal spoilage = 1,200 – 900 = 300 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | e Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 75%. | 2 & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-22B calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process, using the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-22B Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; FIFO Method of Process Costing, Appleton Company, August 2006.    |   |Total |Direct |Conversion | | | |Production |Materials |Costs | | | |Costs | | | |(Step 3) |Work in process, beginning (given) ($17,700 + $10,900) |$ 28,600 | | | | |Costs added in current period (given) | 174,300 |$ 81,300 | $93,000 | | |Divide by equivalent units of work done in current period | |[pic]10,000 |[pic]10,550 | | |Cost per equivalent unit | | $ 8. 130 | $ 8. 152 | |(Step 4) |Total costs to account for |$202,900 | | | |(Step 5) |Assignment of costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | | | Work in process, beginning (2,000 units) |$ 28,600 | | | | | Costs added to beg. work in process in current period | 8,815 |(0f ? $8. 13) | + (1,000f ? $8. 152) | | | Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | 37,415 | | | | | Started and completed before normal spoilage (7,000 units) | 118,616 |(7,000f ? $8. 13) | + (7,000f ? $8. 8152) | | | Normal spoilage (900 units) | 15,521 |(900f ? $8. 13) | + (900f ? $8. 8152) | |(A) | Total costs of good units completed and transferred out | 171,282 | | | |(B) |Abnormal spoilage (300 units) | 5,084 |(300f ? $8. 13) | + (300f ? $8. 8152) | |(C) |Work in process, ending (1,800 units): | 26,534 |(1,800f ? $8. 13) | + (1,350f ? $8. 152) | |(A) + (B) + (C) |Total costs accounted for |$202,900 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |fEquivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-22A. | 18-2 3 (30 min. ) Standard-costing method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-23A calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. (It is the same as Solution Exhibit 18-22A. ) SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-23A Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; Standard Costing Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Appleton Company for August 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | |Flow of Production |Physical Units |Direct |Conversion Costs | | | |Materials | | |Work in process, beginning (given) | 2,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) | 10,000 | | | |To account for | 12,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during current period: | | | | | From beginning work in process a | 2,000 | | | | [2,000 ? (100% – 100%); 2,000 ? 100% – 50%)] | | 0| 1,000 | | Started and completed | 7,000b | | | | (7,000 ? 100%; 7,000 ? 100%) | | 7,000 | 7,000 | |Normal spoilagec | 900 | | | | (900 ? 100%; 900 ? 100%) | | 900 | 900 | |Abnormal spoilaged | 300 | | | | (300 ? 100%; 300 ? 00%) | | 300 | 300 | |Work in process, endinge (given) | 1,800 | | | | (1,800 ? 100%; 1,800 ? 75%) | | 1,800 | 1,350 | |Accounted for | 12,000 | | | |Work done in current period only | | 10,000 | 10,550 | | | | | | | a Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 50%. | b 9,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 2,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning | | work-in-process inventory. | | c Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? 9,000 = 900 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this | | department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | d Total spoilage = Beg. units + Units started – Good units tsfd. Out – ending units = 2,000 + 10,000 – 9,000 – 1,800 = 1,200 | | Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage – Normal spoilage = 1,200 â€⠀œ 900 = 300 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | e Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 75%. | 2 & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-23B calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process, using standard costing. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-23B Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; Standard Costing Method of Process Costing, Appleton Company, August 2006.    |   |Total |Direct |Conversion | | | |Production |Materials |Costs | | | |Costs | | | |(Step 3) |Standard cost per equivalent unit (given) | $ 17. 50 | $8. 00 | $9. 50 | | |Work in process, beginning (given) | $ 25,500 | (2,000 ? $8. 00) |+ (1,000 ? $9. 50) | | |Costs added in current period at standard prices | 180,225 | (10,000 ? $8. 00) |+ (10,550 ? $9. 0) | |(Step 4) |Total costs to account for |$205,725 | | | |(Step 5) |Assignment of costs at standard costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | | | Work in process, beginning (2,000 units) |$ 25,500 | | | | | Costs added to beg. work in process in current period | 9,500 |(0f ? $8. 00) |+ (1,000f ? $9. 50) | | | Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | 35,000 | | | | | Started and completed before normal spoilage (7,000 units) | 122,500 |(7,000f ? $8. 00) |+ (7,000f ? $9. 50) | | | Normal spoilage (900 units) | 15,750 |(900f ? $8. 00) |+ (900f ? $9. 0) | |(A) | Total costs of good units completed and transferred out | 173,250 | | | |(B) |Abnormal spoilage (300 units) | 5,250|(300f ? $8. 00) |+ (300f ? $9. 50) | |(C) |Work in proce ss, ending (1,800 units): | 27,225 |(1,800f ? $8. 00) |+ (1,350f ? $9. 50) | |(A) + (B) + (C) |Total costs accounted for |$205,725 | | | |f Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-23A. | 18-24(25 min. ) Weighted-average method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-24, Panel A, calculates the equivalent units of work done to date for each cost category in September 2006. 2. & 3.Solution Exhibit 18-24, Panel B, calculates the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the weighted-average method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-24 Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Superchip, September 2006. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Un its | | Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |400 | | | |Started during current period (given) |1,700 | | | |To account for |2,100 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: |1,400 |1,400 |1,400 | |Normal spoilage* |210 | | | |210 ( 100%; 210 ( 100% | |210 |210 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |190 | | | |190 ( 100%; 190 ( 100% | |190 |190 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) |300 | | | |300 ( 100%; 300 ( 40% | |300 |120 | |Accounted for |2,100 | | | |Work done to date | |2,100 |1,920 | *Normal spoilage is 15% of good units transferred out: 15% ? 1,400 = 210 units.Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 400 + 1,700 – 1,400 – 300 = 400 units; Abnormal spoilage = Total spoilage ( Normal spoilage = 400 ( 210 = 190 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 40%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-24 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 74,200 |$ 64,000 |$ 10,200 | |Costs added in current period (given) |531,600 |378,000 |153,600 | |Costs incurred to date | |$442,000 |$163,800 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |( 2,100 |( 1,920 | |Cost per equivalent unit costs of work done to date | |$210. 476 |$85. 125 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$605,800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (1,400 units) | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$414,104 |(1,400#( $210. 476) + (1,400#( $85. 3125) | |Normal spoilage (210 units) |62,116 |(210# ( $210. 476) + (210# ( $85. 125) | |(A) Total cost of good units completed and transferred out | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (190 units) |476,220 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (300 units) |56,199 |(190# ( $210. 476) + (190# ( $85. 3125) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |73,381 |(300# ( $210. 476) + (120# ( $85. 3125) | | |$605,800 | | # Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 8-25 (25 min. ) FIFO method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel A, calculates the equivalent units of work done in the current period for each cost category in September 2006. 2. & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel B, calculates the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes the total Microchip Department costs for September 2006, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abno rmal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process under the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-25 First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Superchip, September 2006.PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in rocess, beginning (given) |400 | | | |Started during current period (given) |1,700 | | | |To account for |2,100 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: | | | | |From beginning work in process|| |400 | | | |400 ( (100% (100%); 400 ( (100% ( 30%) | |0 |280 | |Started and completed |1,000# | | | |1,000 ( 100%; 1,000 ( 100% | |1,000 |1,000 | |Normal spoilage* |210 | | | |210 ( 100%; 210 ( 100% | |210 |210 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |190 | | | |190 ( 100%; 190 ( 100% | |190 |190 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |300 | | | |300 ( 100%; 300 ( 40% | |300 |120 | |Accounted for |2,100 | | | |Work done in current period only | |1,700 |1,800 | ||Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 30%. #1,400 physical units completed and transferred out minus 400 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work in process inventory. Normal spoilage is 15% of good units transferred out: 15% ( 1,400 = 210 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage ( Normal spoilage = 400 ( 210 = 190 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 40%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-25 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4 and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning, $64,000 + $70,200 (given) |$ 74,200 | | | |Costs added in current period (given) |531,600 |378,000 |153,600 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in | | | | |current period | |( 1,700 |( 1,800 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$222. 353 |$ 85. 33 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$605,800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (1,400 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (400 units) |$ 74,200 | | |Costs added beg. work in process in current period |23,893 |(0 § ( $222. 353) + (280 § ( $85. 33) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage |98,093 | | |(1,000 units) | | | |Normal spoilage (210 units) |307,686 |(1,000 §($222. 353) + (1,000 §($85. 333) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and |64,614 |(210 §($222. 353) + (210 §($85. 333) | |transferred out | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (190 units) |470,393 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (300 units) |58,461 |(190 §($222. 353) + (190 §($85. 33) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |76,946 |(300 §($222. 353) + (120 §( $85. 333) | | |$605,800 | |  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 18-26 (30 min. ) Standard costing method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel A, shows the computation of the equivalent units of work done in September 2006 for direct materials (1,700 units) and conversion costs (1,800 units). (This computation is the same for FIFO and standard-costing. ) 2.The direct materials cost per equivalent unit of beginning work in process and of work done in September 2006 is the standard cost of $210 given in the problem. The conversion cost per equivalent unit of beginning work in process and of work done in Se ptember 2006 is the standard cost of $80 given in the problem. 3. Solution Exhibit 18-26 summarizes the total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the standard costing method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-26 Standard Costing Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Superchip, September 2006.Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Standard costs per equivalent unit (given) |$ 290 | $ 210 | $ 80 | |Work in process, beginning* |93,600 |(400 ( $210) + |(120 ( $80) | |Costs added in current period at standard prices |501,000 |(1,700 ( $210) + |(1,800 ( $80) | |(Step 4) Costs to account for $594,600 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of cost s at standard costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |(1,400 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (400 units) |$ 93,600 | | |Costs added beg. ork in process in current period |22,400 |(0 § ( $210) + (280 § ( $80) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal | | | |spoilage |116,000 | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage | | | |(1,000 units) |290,000 |(1,000 § ( $210) + (1,000 § ( $80) | |Normal spoilage (210 units) |60,900 |(210 § ( $210) + (210 § ( $80) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and | | | |transferred out |466,900 | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (190 units) |55,100 |(190 § ( $210) + (190 § ( $80) | |(C) Work in process, ending (300 units) |72,600 |(300 § ( $210) + (120 § ( $80) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$594,600 | | *Work in process, beginning has 400 equivalent units (400 physical units (100%) of direct materials and 120 equivalent units (400 physical units ( 30%) of conversion costs.  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel A. 18-27(20–30 min. )Spoilage and job costing. 1. Cash 200 Loss from Abnormal Spoilage1,000 Work-in-Process Control1,200 Loss = ($6. 00 ( 200) – $200 = $1,000 Remaining cases cost = $6. 00 per case.The cost of these cases is unaffected by the loss from abnormal spoilage. 2. a. Cash 400 Work-in-Process Control 400 The cost of the remaining good cases = [($6. 00 ( 2,500) – $400] = $14,600 The unit cost of a good case now becomes $14,600 ( 2,300 = $6. 3478 b. Cash 400 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control800 Work-in-Process Control1,200 The unit cost of a good case remains at $6. 00. c. The unit costs in 2a and 2b are different because in 2a the normal spoilage cost is charged as a cost of the job which has exacting job specifications. In 2b however, normal spoilage is due to the production process, not the particular attributes of this specific job. These costs are, therefore, charged as part of manufacturing overhead and the manufacturing overhead cost of $1 per case already includes a provision for normal spoilage. 3. a. Work-in-Process Control 200 Materials Control, Wages Payable Control, Manufacturing Overhead Allocated 200 The cost of the good cases = [($6. 00 ( 2,500) + $200] = $15,200 The unit cost of a good case is $15,200 ( 2,500 = $6. 08 b. Manufacturing Department Overhead Control 200 Materials Control, Wages Payable Control, Manufacturing Overhead Allocated200 The unit cost of a good case = $6. 00 per case c. The unit costs in 3a and 3b are different because in 3a the normal rework cost is charged as a cost of the job which has exacting job specifications.In 3b however, normal rework is due to the production process, not the particular attributes of this specific job. These costs are, therefore, charged as part of manufacturing overhead and the manufacturing overhead cost of $1 per case already includes a provision for this normal rework. 18-28(15 min. ) Reworked units, costs of rework. 1. The two alternative approaches to account for the materials costs of reworked units are: a. To charge the costs of rework to the current period as a separate expense item as abnormal rework. This approach would highlight to White Goods the costs of the supplier problem. b. To charge the costs of the rework to manufacturing overhead as normal rework. 2.The $50 tumbler cost is the cost of the actual tumblers included in the washing machines. The $44 tumbler units from the new supplier were eventually never used in any washing machine and that supplier is now bankrupt. The units must now be disposed of at zero disposal value. 3. The total costs of rework due to the defective tumbler units include the following: a. the labor and other conversion costs spent on substituting the new tumbler units; b. the costs of any extra negotiations to obtain the replacement tumbler units; c. any higher price the existing suppl ier may have charged to do a rush order for the replacement tumbler units; and d. rdering costs for the replacement tumbler units. 18-29(25 min. )Scrap, job costing. 1. Journal entry to record scrap generated by a specific job and accounted for at the time scrap is sold is: Cash or Accounts Receivable490 Work-in-Process Control490 To recognize asset from sale of scrap. A memo posting is also made to the specific job record. 2. Scrap common to various jobs and accounted for at the time of its sale can be accounted for in two ways: a. Regard scrap sales as a separate line item of revenues (the method generally used when the dollar amount of scrap is immaterial): Cash or Accounts Receivable4,000 Sale of Scrap4,000 To recognize revenue from sale of scrap. b.Regard scrap sales as offsets against manufacturing overhead (the method generally used when the dollar amount of scrap is material): Cash or Accounts Receivable4,000 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control4,000 To record cash rais ed from sale of scrap. 3. Journal entry to record scrap common to various jobs at the time scrap is returned to storeroom: Materials Control4,000 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control4,000 To record value of scrap returned to storeroom. When the scrap is reused as direct material on a subsequent job, the journal entry is: Work-in-Process Control4,000 Materials Control4,000 To record reuse of scrap on a job. Explanations of journal entries are provided here but are not required. 18-30 (30 min. Weighted-average method, spoilage. Solution Exhibit 18-30 calculates the equivalent units of work done to date for each cost category, presents computations of the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the weighted-average method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-30 Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spo ilage; Cleaning Department of the Alston Company for May. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | | |Physical Units |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production | |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period given) |9,000 | | | |To account for |10,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: |7,400 |7,400 |7,400 | |Normal spoilage* | | | | |740 ( 100%; 740 ( 100% |740 |740 |740 | |Abnormal spoilage†  | | | | |260 ( 100%; 260 (100% |260 |260 |260 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) | | | | |1,600 ( 100%; 1,600 ( 25% |1,600 |1,600 |400 | |Accounted for | | | | |Work done to date |10,000 |10,000 |8,800 | *Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? ,400 = 740 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion co sts, 100%. † Total spoilage = 1,000 + 9,000 – 7,400 – 1,600 = 1,000 units; Abnormal spoilage = 1,000 – 740 = 260 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-30 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 1,800 |$ 1,000 |$ 800 | |Costs added in current period (given) |17,000 |9,000 |8,000 | |Costs incurred to date | |10,000 |8,800 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |(10,000 |( 8,800 | |Cost per equivalent unit |______ |$ 1 |$ 1 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$18, 800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (7,400 units) | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$14,800 | (7,400# ( $1) + | (7,400# ( $1) | |Normal spoilage (740 units) |1,480 |(740# ( $1) + |(740# ( $1) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and | | | | |transferred out |16,280 | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (260 units) |520 |(260# ( $1) + |(260# ( $1) | |(C) Work in process, ending (1,600 units) |2,000 |(1,600# ( $1) + |(400# ( $1) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$18,800 | | | | | | | | #Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A above. 18-31(25 min. )FIFO method, spoilage.For the Cleaning Department, Solution Exhibit 18-31 calculates the equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs, presents the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes the total costs for May, and assigns these cost s to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process under the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-31 First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Cleaning Department of the Alston Company for May. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) | 9,000 | | | |To account for 10,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during current period: | | | | | From beginning work in process|| |1,000 | | | | 1,000 ( (100% (100%); 1,000 ( (100% ( 80%) | |0 |200 | | Started and completed |6,400# | | | | 6,400 ( 100%; 6,400 ( 100% | |6,400 |6,400 | |Normal spoilage* |740 | | | | 740 ( 100%; 740% ( 100% | |740 |740 | |Abnorm al spoilage†  |260 | | | | 260 ( 100%; 260 ( 100% | |260 |260 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |1,600 | | | | 1,600 ( 100%; 1,600 ( 25% |______ |1,600 |400 | |Accounted for |10,000 |_____ |_____ | |Work done in current period only | |9,000 |8,000 | || Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 80%. #7,400 physical units completed and transferred out minus 1,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work-in-process inventory. Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ( 7,400 = 740 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 1,000 + 9,000 – 7,400 – 1,600 = 1,000 units Abnormal spoilage = 1,000 – 740 = 260 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100 %; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-31 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 1,800 |$1,000 |$ 800 | |Costs added in current period (given) |17,000 |9,000 |8,000 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in current period | |(9,000 |(8,000 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |1 |1 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$18,800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (7,400 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (1,000 units) |$ 1,800 | | |Costs added to beg. work in process in current period |200 |(0 § ( $1) + (200 § ( $1) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage |2,000 | | |Started and ompleted before normal spoilage (6,400 units) |12,800 |(6,400 § ( $1) + (6,400 § ( $1) | |Normal spoilage (740 units) |1,480 |(740 § ( $1) + (740 § ( $1) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and transferred out |16,280 | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (260 units) |520 |(260 § ( $1) + (260 § ( $1) | |(C) Work in process, ending (1,600 units) |2,000 |(1,600 § ( $1) + (400 § ( $1) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$18,800 | |  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 18-32 (35 min. Weighted-average method, Milling Department (continuation of 18-30). For the Milling Department, Solution Exhibit 18-32 calculates the equivalent units of work done to date for each cost category, presents computations of the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the weighted-a verage method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-32 Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Milling Department of the Alston Company for May. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | | |Physical Units |Transferred- |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production | |in Costs |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |3,000 | | | | |Started during current period (given) |7,400 | | | | |To account for |10,400 | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | | |during current period: |6,000 |6,000 |6,000 |6,000 | |Normal spoilage* |300 | | | | |300 ( 100%; 300 ( 100%; 300 ( 100% | |300 |300 |300 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |100 | | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 (100%, 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 |100 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) |4,000 | | | | |4,000 ( 100%; 4,000 ( 0%; 4,000 ( 25% | |4,000 |0 |1,000 | |Accounted for |10,400 | | | | |Work done to date | |10,40 0 |6,400 |7,400 | *Normal spoilage is 5% of good units transferred out: 5% ? 6,000 = 300 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 3,000 + 7,400 – 6,000 – 4,000 = 400 units. Abnormal spoilage = 400 – 300 = 100 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 0%; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-32PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | |Total | | | | | |Production |Transferred-in |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |costs |Materials |Costs | | | | | | | |(Step 3) Work in process, beg inning (given) |$ 8,900 |$ 6,450 |$ 0 |$2,450 | |Costs added in current period (given) |21,870 |16,280* |640 |4,950 | |Costs incurred to date | |22,730 |640 |7,400 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |(10,400 |( 6,400 |(7,400 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$2. 1856 |$ 0. 0 |$ 1 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$30,770 | | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (6,000 units) | | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$19,713 |6,000# ( ($2. 1856 + $0. 10 + $1) | |Normal spoilage (300 units) |986 |300# ( ($2. 1856 + $0. 0 + $1) | |(A) Total cost of good units completed and transferred out | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (100 units) |20,699 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (4,000 units) |329 |100# ( ($2. 1856 + $0. 10 + $1) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |9,742 |(4,000# ( $2. 1856)+(0# ( $0. 10)+(1,000# ( $1) | | |$30,770 | | *Total costs of good units completed and transferred out in Step 5 Panel B of S olution Exhibit 18-30. #Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A above. 18-33(25 min. )FIFO method, Milling Department (continuation of 18-31).Solution Exhibit 18-33 shows the equivalent units of work done in the Milling Department in the current period for transferred-in costs, direct materials, and conversion costs, presents the costs per equivalent unit for transferred-in costs, direct materials, and conversion costs, summarizes the total Milling Department costs for May, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work-in-process under the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-33 First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Milling Department of the Alston Company for May.PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Transferred- |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |in Costs |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |3,000 | | | | |Started during current period (given) |7,400 | | | | |To account for |10,400 | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during | | | | | |current period: | | | | | |From beginning work in process|| |3,000 | | | | |3,000 ( (100% ( 100%); 3,000 ( | | | | | |(100% ( 0%); 3,000 ( (100% ( 80%) | |0 |3,000 |600 | |Started and completed |3,000# | | | | |3,000 ( 100%; 3,000 ( 100%; 3,000 ( 100% | |3,000 |3,000 |3,000 | |Normal spoilage* |300 | | | | |300 ( 100%; 300% ( 100%; 300 ( 100% | |300 |300 |300 | |Abnormal spoilage†  100 | | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 |100 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |4,000 | | | | |4,000 ( 100%; 4,000 ( 0%; 4,000 ( 25% | |4,000 |0 |1,000 | |Accounted for |10,400 | | | | |Work done in current period only | |7,400 |6,400 |5,000 | ||Degree of completion in this department : transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 0%; conversion costs, 80%. 6,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 3,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work-in-process inventory. *Normal spoilage is 5% of good units transferred out: 5% ( 6,000 = 300 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 3,000 + 7,400 – 6,000 – 4,000 = 400 units. Abnormal spoilage = 400 – 300 = 100 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 0%; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-33PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Complete d, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | |Total | | | | | |Production |Transferred- |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |in Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, begin. given) | | | | | |($6,450 + $0 + $2,450) |$ 8,900 | | | | |Costs added in current period (given) |21,870 |16,280* |640 |4,950 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in | | | | | |current period | |( 7,400 |( 6,400 |( 5,000 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$ 2. 20 |$ 0. 10 |$ 0. 9 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$30,770 | | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (6,000 units) | | | | | |Work in process, beginning (3,000 units) |$ 8,900 | | |Costs added to beg. work in process in | | | |current period |894 |(0 ( $2. 20)+(3,000 §( 0. 10)+( 600 § ( $0. 9) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage (3,000 units) |9,794 | | |Normal spoilage (300 units) | | | |(A) To tal costs of good units completed and |9,870 |3,000 § ( ($2. 20 + $0. 10 + $0. 99) | |transferred out |987 |300 § ( ($2. 20 + $0. 10 + $0. 9) | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (100 units) | | | |(C) Work in process, ending (4,000 units) |20,651 | | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |329 |100 § ( ($2. 20 + $0. 10 + $0. 99) | | |9,790 |(4,000 §( $2. 20)+( 0 §($0. 10)+(1,000 §($0. 99) | | |$30,770 | | *Total costs of good units completed and transferred out in Step 5 Panel B of Solution Exhibit 18-31.  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 18-34 (20(25 min. ) Job-costing spoilage and scrap. 1. a.Materials Control 600 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control800 Work-in-Process Control1,400 (650 + 500 + 250 = 1,400) b. Accounts Receivable1,250 Work-in-Process Control1,250 2. a. The clause does not specify whether the 1% calculation is to be based on the input cost ($26,951 + $15,076 + $7,538) or the cost of the good output before the â€Å"1% normal spoilage† is added. b. If the inputs are used to determine the 1%: $26,951 + $15,076 + $7,538 = $49,565 1% of $49,565 = $495. 65 or $496, rounded. Then, the entry to leave the $496 â€Å"normal spoilage† cost on the job, remove the salvageable material, and charge manufacturing overhead would be: Materials Control 600Manufacturing Department Overhead Control304 Work-in-Process Control 904 ($800 spoilage minus $496 = $304 spoilage cost that is taken out of the job; $600 salvage value plus $304 = $904; or $1,400 minus $496 = $904) If the outputs are used to determine the 1%: $26,951 – $650 = $26,301 15,076 – 500 =14,576 7,538 – 250 = 7,288 $49,565$48,165 Then, $48,165 ( 1% = $481. 65 or $482, rounded. The journal entry would be: Materials Control 600 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control318 Work-in-Process Control918 18-35(30 min. ) Job costing, rework. 1. Work-in-Process Control (SM-5 motors) ($550 ( 80)44,000 Material s Control ($300 ( 80)24,000 Wages Payable ($60 ( 80)4,800Manufacturing Overhead Allocated ($190 ( 80)15,200 Total costs assigned to 80 spoiled units of SM-5 Motors before considering rework costs. Manufacturing Department Overhead Control (rework)9,000 Materials Control ($60 ( 50)3,000 Wages Payable ($45 ( 50)2,250 Manufacturing Overhead Allocated ($75 ( 50)3,750 Normal rework on 50 units, but not attributable specifically to the SM-5 motor batches or jobs. Loss from Abnormal Rework ($180 ( 30)5,400 Materials Control ($60 ( 30)1,800 Wages Payable ($45 ( 30)1,350 Manufacturing Overhead Allocated ($75 ( 30)2,250 Total costs of abnormal rework on 30 units (Abnormal rework = Actual rework – Normal rework = 80 – 50 = 30 units) of SM-5 Motors. Work-in-Process Control (SM-5 motors)6,000 Work-in-Process Control (RW-8 motors)3,000Manufacturing Department Overhead Allocated (rework)9,000 (Allocating manufacturing department rework costs to SM-5 and RW-8 in the proportion 1,000:5 00 since each motor requires the same number of machine-hours. ) 2. Total rework costs for SM-5 motors in February 2004 are as follows: Normal rework costs allocated to SM-5$ 6,000 Abnormal rework costs for SM-5 5,400 Total rework costs$11,400 We emphasize two points: a. Only $6,000 of the normal rework costs are allocated to SM-5 even though the normal rework costs of the 50 SM-5 motors reworked equal $9,000. The reason is that the normal rework costs are not specifically attributable to SM-5.For example, the machines happened to malfunction when SM-5 was being made, but the rework was not caused by the specific requirements of SM-5. If it were, then all $9,000 would be charged to SM-5. b. Abnormal rework costs of $5,400 are linked to SM-5 in the management control system even though for financial reporting purposes the abnormal rework costs are written off to the income statement. 18-36(30 min. )Job costing, scrap. 1. Materials Control10,000 Manufacturing Overhead Control10,000 (T o record scrap common to all jobs at the time it is returned to the storeroom) 2. Cash or Accounts Receivable10,000 Materials Control10,000 (To record sale of scrap from the storeroom) 3. A summary of the manufacturing costs for HM3 and JB4 before considering the value of scrap are as follows: |HM3 |JB4 |Total Costs | |Direct materials |$200,000 |$150,000 |$350,000 | |Direct manufacturing labor |60,000 |40,000 |100,000 | |Manufacturing overhead | | | | |(200% of direct manufacturing labor) |120,000 |80,000 |200,000 | |Total manufacturing costs |$380,000 |$270,000 |$650,000 | |Manufacturing cost per unit |$19 |$27 | | |($380,000[pic]20,000; $270,000[pic]10,000) | | | | The value of scrap of $10,000 generated during March will reduce manufacturing overhead costs by $10,000 from $200,000 to $190,000. Manufacturing overhead will then be allocated at 190% of direct manufacturing labor costs ($190,000 ? $100,000 = 190%) The revised manufacturing cost per unit would then be: |HM3 |JB4 |Tot al Costs | |Direct materials |$200,000 |$150,000 |$350,000 | |Direct manufacturing labor |60,000 |40,000 |100,000 | |Manufacturing overhead | | | | |(190% of direct manufacturing labor) |114,000 |76,000 |190,000 | |Total manufacturing costs |$374,000 |$266,000 |$640,000 | |Manufacturing cost per unit | $18. 70 | $26. 60 | | |($374,000[pic]20,000; $266,000[pic]10,000) | | | | 18-37(15(20 min. ) Physical units, inspection at various stages of completion (chapter appendix). |Inspection |Inspection |Inspection | | |at 15% |at 40% |at 100% | |Work in process, beginning (20%)* |14,000 |14,000 |14,000 | |Started during March |120,000 |120,000 |120,000 | |To account for |134,000 |134,000 |134,000 | |Good units completed and transferred out |113,000a |113,000a |113,000a | |Normal spoilage |6,600b |7,440c |6,780d | |Abnormal spoilage (10,000 – normal spoilage) |3,400 |2,560 |3,220 | |Work in process, ending (70%)* |11,000 |11,000 |11,000 | |Accounted for |134,000 |134,000 |134,000 | *D egree of completion for conversion costs of the forging process at the dates of the work-in-process inventories a14,000 beginning inventory +120,000 –10,000 spoiled – 11,000 ending inventory = 113,000 b6% ( (113,000 – 14,000 + 11,000) = 6% ( 110,000 = 6,600 c6% ( (113,000 + 11,000 ) = 6% ( 124,000 = 7,440 d6% ( 113,000 = 6,780 18-38(25(35 min. Weighted-average method, inspection at 80% completion (chapter appendix).The computation and allocation of spoilage is the most difficult part of this problem. The units in the ending inventory have passed inspection. Therefore, of the 80,000 units to account for (10,000 beginning + 70,000 started), 10,000 must have been spoiled in June [80,000 – (50,000 completed + 20,000 ending inventory)]. Normal spoilage is 7,000 [0. 10 ( (50,000 + 20,000)]. The 3,000 remainder is abnormal spoilage (10,000 – 7,000). Solution Exhibit 18-38, Panel A, calculates the equivalent units of work done for each cost category. We co mment on several points in this calculation: Ending work in process includes an element of normal spoilage since all the ending WIP have passed the point of inspection––inspection occurs when production is 80% complete, while the units in ending WIP are 95% complete. †¢ Spoilage includes no direct materials units because spoiled units are detected and removed from the finishing activity when inspection occurs at the time production is 80% complete. Direct materials are added only later when production is 90% complete. †¢ Direct materials units are included for ending work in process, which is 95% complete, but not for beginning work in process, which is 25% complete. The reason is that direct materials are added when production is 90% complete. The ending work in process, therefore, contains direct materials units; the beginning work in process does not.

Describe a room of your house: My drawing room

My living room has a peculiar shape. From the pinnacle it would look like a big rectangular shape forms it with the longest sides facing north and south. To the side facing north it is then attached a smaller shape known as square. A black and white fitted carpet has covered the whole room. In addition to that, to the side facing south, is attached a half hexagonal shape. Inside the square section of the room there is the television, which is a flat, screen Philips 40 inches. The television is on the top of one of the 12 shelves that compose the TV storage combination drawer. The six drawers under the shelves, two for each column that means that over the drawers there are four shelves, are smooth running as well as accessorised with a drawer stop. The post is provided with a groove prepared for lighting and cabling, basically foil finish and aluminium. The shelves are In tempered glass. The colour of the drawers is white. In the shelves there CDs of any existing kind as well as my silver and green XBOX 360, speakers, DVD player brand Philips and sky's white digital box. On the topside of the wall facing east there is a black glass bookcase with doors. It is composed of 14 adjustable shelves; also whenever I want I can adjust the spacing between them to my needs. On the bottom of the wall facing west there is a glass door cabinet. The cabinet is in tinted solid spruce. The raw material that has been used for the cabinet is strawberries' tree's wood. The colour is dark brown and it is equipped with eight shelves. On top of them there are mainly glasses as well as two tee's services in porcelain. In the center of the room there is a painted finish white coffee table. The top is in glass with the corners reinforced in wood. The bottom part is in wood. The table is pretty short, as it has to go on level with the sofa. The sofa is divided in three sections that can be moved around in order to create a suitable combination. Its rephult white cover is removable. The sofa is a hundred percent cotton. Its steel frames are chrome plated and therefore it gives then that silver shiny look. Positioned on top of them there are two black cushions each. On the same wall there is a portray painted by Boccelli, the paint represents a man who has nothing and rests on the doorstep of an Italian church. Whenever I walk inside it a feel weird however. I don't know why but I don't feel at home and wish for braking free out of its invisible grasp. I suppose this could mean that I don't like my house or I don't like my family. I don't really know what to say; I like sitting on the sofa alone because I am use to it, however if my father were to sit beside me uneasiness would fill me. Describing the dining room My Dining room and kitchen are separated by a sliding door; therefore I like to think of them as u unique room although they aren't. It has a kind of rectangular shape. The floor of my dining room is in dark brown wood; consequently it can also be called parquet, which from French means wooden patterned floor. On top of the parquet there is a rug. The wool is soil-repellent as well as hard wearing. It is composed by a hundred percent-multicoloured wool although the prevalent colour is burgundy. In the center of the room there is a huge dining table made of oak veneer. It visibly is brown and a shady one as well. It has a height of abut 74 centimetres. The ten chairs are made of solid beech. The cover is sensibly dry-cleaned as it is made of seventy-five percent cotton and the remaining twenty-five percent of viscose/rayon. The legs of the chairs are tinted in brown black while the rest is in sanne white. The more elongated sides of the room are in communication with the South and North Pole. Very close to the wall facing east there is an armchair that could even substitute the chair of the person that heads the table as it is on the same level. The armchair is made of the same material of which the chair are made of a part from the legs which are made of plated chrome. The cover of the seat is removable, as the colour white can easily be soiled by any other colour, in order of being washed and then placed over again. If it tears it can then be substituted. On the north wall there is a portray entitled Sur La Table. Two pendant lamps illumine the room, which creates two different shades. The lamp is handmade. The material used is natural wood, not the synthetic one. Positioned ion the table there are four green, red, blue and purple candles. Attached to the wall facing west there is a red-glassed door cabinet. The cabinet is formed by twelve sliding shelves, which can change the amount of space between them. Inside them there are different kinds of glasses: Vodka, whisky, rheum, cocktail, champagne, snaps white wine, red wine, wine, juice and water. Other things inside are porcelain plates: Saucers, mugs, sugar bowls, cream jugs, trays, serving stands, oven/serving dishes, serving plates, oven serving plates with holders, gravy jugs, serving bowls with lid, side plates, deep plates and normal plates. Describing My Bedroom My room has a rectangular silhouette with edges which have been smoothed so that it gives them that modern design look as well as making the walls looking as single one that encircles the room. The colour of the walls is light blue; it strongly as well as nostalgically remembers me of the ocean that surrounds the place from which I come from, Jamaica. Similarly the colour of the — wall is deep blue. I have six light bulbs inserted inside the empty corresponding cavities, which were previously made on the covering wall; all of them can rotate and focus in different points. The floor instead of being made of marbles is parquet, which means wooden floor; moreover its colour is obviously golden-brown. It is basically patterned flooring constituted of rectangular timber boards. My bed's longest side is sided by the right wall of my room, while my personal computer and peripherals are on the other side of the room. The writing desk is equipped with a lamp as well as a laptop. It is made of stainless steel while the legs in powder-coated steel. Stool is silver coloured which goes well with the colour of the table as well as the one of the laptop. Under the table there I have a pedal bin in galvanised steel. Inside my room there is also a television that faces the door and is right in front of the north wall; under it I have my green XBOX 360 as well as my black play station 2. To its right I have a double glazed window, which does not allow the external rumours to enter inside my room. On the bottom right corner I have a four-door wardrobe; its doors are made of tempered glass reinforced with wood on the edges. On the centre of the room I have a red seating combination sofa. It is soft, Hardwearing and easy to care leather. Its legs are in Nickel-plated steel. In conclusion room is something material to others while to me its something precious and as a live as me since it can represent me and it does. What is disorder to some is order to me, this is something that I cannot change. Studying people belongings can mean understanding people since their feeling usually are enclosed in these loveless objects to strangers that appear alive to their owner.

The Interaction of Attractiveness and Style of Cri Essays

The Interaction of Attractiveness and Style of Cri Essays The Interaction of Attractiveness and Style of Crime Carter W. Daniels University of Kentucky Abstract Attractiveness has often been investigated as involving a leniency effect; however, in the context of a con based crime, it becomes the Achilles heel of the perpetrator. Previous research has, for the most part, demonstrated both effects as real and measurable. The present study recreates the con specifically; it is believed that an attractive defendant will receive a harsher sentence than an unattractive one, because a con requires the use of beauty/charm as a weapon. The study utilized psychology undergraduates from the University of Kentucky as participants, because at the time they were seen as representative of the university population at large. Students read a crime summary either accompanied by a picture or no picture at all, which was meant to influence their decision in how long the perpetrator stayed in prison. The results were inconclusive due to many extraneous variables that weren't controlled, thereby resulting in confounds and the inability to reject the null hyp othesis. Limitations are discussed as a foundation for expanded research that would produce conclusive data. The Interaction of Attractiveness and Style of Crime Attractiveness is something that our society hold s to a self-fulfilling standard; that is we often go easier or reward more attractive people because of their physical appearance , however sometimes physical appearances can be a detriment to an individual . There is a lot of research out there that tries to explain this phenomenon and most of it is conflicting because each study tries to measure attractiveness through a myriad of unequal measures. Each study redefines at tractiveness in a different way: a ttractiveness as a set of requirements ( Stewart II, 1985) , facial m aturity (Dumas Teste 2006), and they sometimes look at the relationship of one's self image to perceived beauty ( Darby Jeffers, 1988). Then other times the idea of attractiveness is complicated wit h the type of transgression . The attractiveness-transgression effect allows us to see that attractiveness isn't always the golden standard ( Stewart II, 1985; Schwibbe G. Schwibbe M., 1981; Sigall Ostrove, 1975). A study in 2006 looked at physical beauty as also containing the characteristic of fa cial maturity and researched it s persuasion over juridic decisions when related to offens e congruency and case ambiguity. Dumas and Teste (2006) investigated the "influence of face/offence congruency on such judgments, taking into account the strength of the case against the defendant and the maturity and attractiveness att ributes of the defendant's face " (p. 237 ) . The offense congruency hypothesis proposed stated that those with mature faces would receive harsher prison sentences if the ambiguity of the case was low than those with " baby faces " and low ambiguity. To test their hypothesis a sam ple of forty diverse people were selected to read case summaries accompanied by a questionnaire. Dumas and Teste paired each summary with a photo that was either incongruent or congruent with the case, determined by degree of facial maturity. After performing their analysis , Dumas and Teste concluded that maturity had a more profound effect on the severity of juridical decisions than perceived attractiveness. Physical appearance can also be determined through a list of characteristics; that is to say, one must meet certain criteria to be attractive. In the following research conducted by Stewart II (1985) , attractiveness was defined as having the following four characteristics , "physical attractiveness, neatness, cl eanliness, and quality of dress " (p. 373). Based on these four c haracteristics of appearance Stewart (1985) constructed a field study to test whether or not these components of attractiveness would have persuasion over juridic decisions. In the study eig ht participants went to a court house and observed court cases until sentences were determined . This occurred over a two-yea r period and consisted of sixty cases; ranging from murder, larceny, drug charges and other various felonies. Stewart provided each participant with an "attractiveness index," and filler questions to fill out for each case . After controlling for other influence s such as race, gender, ethnicity, etc ... Stewart found that, "In a series of actual criminal