Answer:
Explanation:
Issue: Will the court rule in support of Daniel’s argument that Nintendo breached the warranty based on reasonable expectation on the performance of an expensive system and statements made while selling the gaming system?
Rule: There is a creation of express warranty when a seller makes a description of the statement quality, condition or performance of goods sold. This warranty is created by the statement of facts and if the seller uses words to designate the value of the supposed goods, it will only be considered as an opinion that does not create any express warranty.
The customer’s reasonable expectation of the existence of the gaming system based on the price leads to implied warranty. The goods sold should be logically fit for the general purpose for which it is sold. It should be of proper quality to satisfy the implied warranty of merchantability and the goods should fit the particular purpose for which the buyer will use the goods to satisfy the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
Analysis: Here, the argument of Daniel that Nintendo’s description of the gaming system as “most reliable”, and “durable” asserted that the quality and performance of the gaming system will not stay because these words create general statements that are made as part of sale or seller’s opinion about the goods. These words would be considered as puffery and do not create any express warranty. The higher price of the gaming system would create an implied warranty about the performance of the system, but the switch failed only after the warranty period. When the seller has expressly stated the warranty period as one year, any defects that occur after the warranty period will not breach the implied warranty.
Moreover, the gaming system was reasonably fit for Daniel’s business purpose and worked well during the warranty period. Hence Daniel’s arguments will not stay in front of the court.
Conclusion: The court will not rule in favor of Daniel and Daniel will not be able to recover against Nintendo because no breach of warranty had occurred.
Answer:
The amount that Cullumber should report as its December 31 inventory is $543000.
Explanation:
FOB shipping point means the purchaser gains title to the merchandise at the shipping point, so when Pelzer shipped the goods, they belonged to Stallman.
**FOB destination means the seller maintains title until the merchandise reaches its destination, so since the goods have not reached their destination, the goods still belonged to Stallman
inventory on december 31 = inventory on december 31 + goods in transit purchased FOB shipping point + goods in transit sold FOB destintion
= $514,000 + $7,000 + $22,000
= $543000
Therefore, The amount that Cullumber should report as its December 31 inventory is $543000.
Our denials to divine nature and lack of appreciation of our connection to all things
The appropriate response is the turnkey project. One of the unique methods of completing universal business is a turnkey project. It is an agreement under which firm consents to complete configuration, build and prepare a business office and turn the venture over to the buyer when it is prepared for operation for a compensation.
Answer:
a. Revenue = $23,660
b. Revenue = $40,837.50
Explanation:
a) Data and Calculations:
Minimum number of chairs to be sold under the deal = 260
Price at minimum number of chairs (260) = $91
Maximum number of chairs to be sold under the deal = 450
Discount offered for quantity above 260 = $0.25 per chair on the entire order
Price at maximum number (or just above 260 chairs) = $90.75 ($91 - $0.25)
Minimum revenue to be made under this deal = $23,660 (260 * $91)
Maximum revenue to be made under this deal = $40,837.50 (450 * $90.75)
