Answer:
temporary suspension and maybe an Improvement Plan.
Explanation:
Based on the scenario, if the company has adopted a progressive discipline program then the according response would be a temporary suspension and maybe an Improvement Plan. This is because a progressive discipline program follows the following steps accordingly.
1) Verbal Counseling. The first step in a progressive discipline process is to merely have a conversation with the employee. ...
2) Written Warning. The second step should be another conversation that is documented in a written format. ...
3) Employee Suspension and Improvement Plan. ...
4) Termination.
Seeing since step 2 has already been done the next course of action would be step 3.
Answer:
There is a violation of Uniform State Law because the agent has made an offer to sell an unregistered non-exempt security in that State
Explanation:
The Uniform State Securities Law is also called blue sky law, and they are put in place at the State level to prevent fraud and to enforce security regulation.
This law was set up to handle investments that do not occur at the federal level. These are out of the purview of the SEC so states handle them.
In the given scenario the agent is trying to make a non exempt security exempt by buying it from the client.
This is an attempt to sell the securities to investors through fraudulent means and it is a violation of Uniform State Law
Answer:
The correct answer is: human resources.
Explanation:
The Human Resources (<em>HR</em>) department is in charge of recruiting and selecting new personnel with the characteristics and profile the organization is looking for. Besides, the HR role is to provide employees the sources necessary so they can perform their duties in a proper environment within the firm.
Answer: 14%
Explanation:
We can calculate this using the Gordon Growth Model which looks like this,
P = D1 / r - g
P is the current stock price
D1 is the next dividend
r is the rate of return or the cost of capital
g is the growth rate.
We have all those figures except the cost of capital so making r the subject of the formula we can solve for it. Doing that will make the formula,
r = D/ P + g
r = 1.55 / 22.10 + 0.07
r = 0.1401
r = 14%
14% is the equity cost of capital.
If you need any clarification do react or comment.
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.
