Back to Questions
Want to know:
Dans la Norme IAS 19 :1. Le coût des services est la part des engagements correspondant à l'année de service qui suit la date de l'évaluation, exprimée à la fin de l'année suivante2. Le coût des services dépend de la charge normale3. La charge normale et le coût des services, c'est la même chose4. Le coût des services est la part des engagements correspondant à l'année de service qui suit la date de l'évaluation, exprimée en début d'année5. Aucune de ces réponses n'est correcte.
Get a detailed, AI-powered explanation for this question and thousands more on StudyFetch.
Get the Answer for FreeHow StudyFetch Helps You Master This Topic
AI-Powered Answers
Get instant, detailed explanations powered by AI that understands your course material.
Deep Understanding
Go beyond surface-level answers with step-by-step breakdowns and examples.
Personalized Learning
Sparky adapts to your learning style and helps you connect ideas.
Practice & Test
Turn any question into flashcards, quizzes, and practice tests to solidify your knowledge.
Explore More Questions
- P 10 Quelle condition la Cour de cassation estime-t-elle nécessaire pour indemniser la victime par ricochet de son préjudice d'affection?
- I talked about the case Scheck v Burger King, in which Scheck is the franchisee and entered into a franchise agreement with Burger King, the franchisor, to own and operate a Burger King franchise location. Burger King opened another location within a couple miles of Mr. Scheck's location. There was no restriction in the franchise agreement that prevented Burger King from opening a location near the franchisee's location. What did the court conclude? Select the best answer.- The case was dismissed. The contract terms (franchise agreement) clearly did not restrict Burger King from opening a restaurant near Mr. Scheck's location.- Mr. Scheck, the franchisee should have read the franchise agreement more thoroughly before signing it, he is now bound to the terms and has no redress for this encroachment on his territory.- The court ruled in favor of Burger King, the franchisor, and concluded Mr. Scheck simply has "buyer's remorse", there is risk in every business transaction.- Even though the franchise agreement did not address territory, the court found Burger King had violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing present in every commercial contract.
- Abrogation d'un acte administratif réglementaire régulier : administration peut toujours l'abroger au nom du ppe d'adaptabilité/mutabilité