• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams

  • ACCA
  • CIMA
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Books
  • Forums
  • Ask AI
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
  • ACCA Forums
  • Ask ACCA Tutor
  • CIMA Forums
  • Ask CIMA Tutor
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Buy/Sell Books
  • All Forums
  • Latest Topics

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

OpenTuition recommends the new interactive BPP books for September 2025 exams.
Get your discount code >>

Relevant Costing – Accept or Reject decisions

Forums › Ask CIMA Tutor Forums › Ask CIMA P1 Tutor Forums › Relevant Costing – Accept or Reject decisions

  • This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by Cath.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • December 2, 2017 at 11:55 pm #419824
    amithrad
    Participant
    • Topics: 1
    • Replies: 1
    • ☆

    I came across the following question. Please help.

    A single product firm working at full capacity has following data;
    Production & sales for the year – 20000 units
    Machine capacity available and fully utilised – 40000 hrs
    Per units data;
    VC $8.20
    FC $1.30
    Selling price $12.50

    An order for 3000 modified units which requires 6600 of machine hrs was received with a additional material cost of $1 per unit.

    The decision to accept or reject should be taken at the price;
    A. $41,790
    B. $40,500
    C. $27,600
    D. $17,190

    The answer according to my calculations is $44,250. Following are my workings;
    VC per machine hr – (8.2×20000)/40000= $4.10
    Contribution per machine hr – {(12.5-8.2)x20000}/40000= $2.15
    Addition material cost per unit = $1

    Therefore the relevant cost is;
    VC – $4.10×6600 = $27,060
    Contribution foregone – $2.15×6600 = $14,190
    Additional Material – 1×30000 = $3,000
    Total relevant cost (min price) = $44,250

    Please clarify. Thank you.

    December 7, 2017 at 11:47 pm #421763
    Cath
    Participant
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 447
    • ☆☆☆

    I have to say – I do agree with your workings and logic. Possibly the question has a bit missing in it – or there is a mistake in the possible options?

    This happens from time-to-time – don’t let it put you off – your understanding of the topic is ok in my opinion.

    December 12, 2017 at 11:51 pm #422803
    amithrad
    Participant
    • Topics: 1
    • Replies: 1
    • ☆

    Thank you so very much.

    December 18, 2017 at 12:38 pm #423915
    Cath
    Participant
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 447
    • ☆☆☆

    You’re welcome

    January 24, 2018 at 5:11 am #432556
    tfbanker
    Member
    • Topics: 1
    • Replies: 5
    • ☆

    In a real exam I would come to an aswer this way.
    1) Contribution forgone: 6 600 hours / 2 hours per unit = 3 300 units could be produced in normal course of business. 3 300 * ($12.5 – $8.2) = $ 14 190.
    2) Additional material: 3 000 * $1 = $3 000.
    3) VC: 3 000 * $8.2 = $ 24 600 (steps 2 and 3 can be combined: 3 000 * $9.2 = $ 27 600).

    So I would choose option A – $41 790 ($14 190 + $27 600 = $41 790).

    Regards,
    YRB

    January 27, 2018 at 12:50 am #433310
    Cath
    Participant
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 447
    • ☆☆☆

    Hi yes apologies. I’ve seen quite a few errors in questions recently -I assumed too quickly that this was one!
    The only small error that amithrad has made in his workings is to apply the variable cost on an hourly basis rather than a per unit basis.
    Variable cost of making the special order items would be 8.20 x 3000 units =$24600 then adding on the $1 for modifying each unit makes 1 x3000=$3000)
    The lost contribution is worked out in hours and was correct as stated 6600 x 2.15 = 14190…
    All together these figures come to $41790
    Answer A.

    May 19, 2018 at 11:03 pm #452895
    kauseni42
    Member
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 1
    • ☆

    why is profit not considered as a relevant cost

    May 20, 2018 at 4:39 pm #453001
    Cath
    Participant
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 447
    • ☆☆☆

    Im not quite sure what you mean?

    The contribution forgone is included?

    The question is basically asking for the minimum contract price – which will be the sum of all relevant costs incurred by the contract.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Log In

Primary Sidebar

Donate
If you have benefited from our materials, please donate

ACCA News:

ACCA My Exam Performance for non-variant

Applied Skills exams is available NOW

ACCA Options:  “Read the Mind of the Marker” articles

Subscribe to ACCA’s Student Accountant Direct

ACCA CBE 2025 Exams

How was your exam, and what was the exam result?

BT CBE exam was.. | MA CBE exam was..
FA CBE exam was.. | LW CBE exam was..

Donate

If you have benefited from OpenTuition please donate.

PQ Magazine

Latest Comments

  • MidnightWolfie on Operating segments (IFRS 8) – ACCA (SBR) lectures
  • John Moffat on Investment Appraisal Under Uncertainty: Expected Values (example 2) – ACCA Financial Management (FM)
  • Dinomain on Investment Appraisal Under Uncertainty: Expected Values (example 2) – ACCA Financial Management (FM)
  • hoangacca on Cost Classification and Behaviour part 2 – ACCA Management Accounting (MA)
  • Elikplim on Time Series Analysis – ACCA Management Accounting (MA)

Copyright © 2025 · Support · Contact · Advertising · OpenLicense · About · Sitemap · Comments · Log in