Answer:
The statement is not an express warranty, because it doesn't involve a negotiation of terms between Salazar and Mitsubishi. It is an employee of the company that imploy Salazar to bring the car should the car gives problem, and didn't involve an agreement between the two parties ( Salazar and Mitsubishi)
Explanation:
What is express warranty?
An express warranty arises from the parties’ negotiations in a sales transaction. Express warranties are often included in the written terms of a contract. An “express” warranty by a seller is created by:
Any statement of fact or promise relating to the goods sold which becomes part of the basis of the bargain between the parties, creating a warranty that the goods will conform to the statement or promise.
Any description of the goods sold which becomes part of the basis of the bargain between the parties, creating a warranty that the goods will conform to the description.
Any sample or model, which becomes part of the basis of the bargain between the parties, creating a warranty that the goods will conform to the sample or model.
An express warranty may be created even if the seller does not use formal words such as “warranty” or “guarantee,” and even if the seller does not have a specific intention to make a warranty. However, an express warranty is not created merely because the seller makes a statement as to the value of the goods, or as to seller’s opinion of the goods. Generally, statements made by a seller during the course of contract negotiations are treated as statements of fact, unless it can be shown that the buyer could only have reasonably considered the statement to be an opinion.
Answer:
Amount deposit = $118,411.4 (Approx.)
Explanation:
Given:
Future amount = $150,000
Rate of interest = 6% compounds semiannual
Number of year = 4 year
Find:
Amount deposit
Computation:
Compounds semiannual
So,
Rate of interest = 6% / 2 = 0.03
Time taken = 4 x 2 = 8 times
So,
A = P[1+r]ⁿ
150,000 = p[1+0.03]⁸
150,000 = p[1.03]⁸
150,000 = p[1.26677]
p = 150,000 / 1.26677
p = 118,411.393
Amount deposit = $118,411.4 (Approx.)
1) Town of Bayport:
We have that the residents value the fireworks at
a total of 50+100+300=450$. That is the utility they gain. But they
would also have to pay 360$ for the fireworks. The total outcome is
450$+(-360$)=90$. Hence, the outcome is positive and the fireworks pass
the cost benefit analysis.
If the fireworks' cost is to be split
equally, we have that each of the 3 residents has to pay 360/3=120$. Let
us now do the cost-benefit analysis for everyone.
Jacques stands to gain 50$ from the fireworks but would have to pay 120$. He will vote against it.
Also, Kyoko will gain 100$ but would have to pay 120$. He will lose utility/money from this so he will vote against.
Musashi on the other hand, would gain 300$ and only pay 120$. He is largely benefitted by this measure. Only he would
We have that 2 out of the 3 would vote against the fireworks, so that the fireworks will not be bought. The vote does not yield the same answer as the benefit-cost analysis.
2) Town of River Heights:
We have that the total value of the fireworks to the community
is 20+140+160=320$. The total value of the fireworks is lower than
their cost so their cost benefit analysis yields that they should not be
bought.
However, let's see what each resident says. The cost to each resident is 360/3=120$. Rina is against the fireworks since she will only gain 20$. Sean and Yvette are for the fireworks since they gain 140$ and 160$ respectively, which are larger than the cost of the fireworks to each of them (120$). Hence, 2 will vote for the fireworks and one will vote against and fireworks will be bought.
Again, the vote clashes with the cost-benefit analysis.
3) The first choice is wrong. It is very difficult for a government to provide the exact types of public goods that everyone wants because that would be too costly; one cannot have a public good that everyone pays for so that only a couple of people enjoy it. In our example, we saw that in every case, a public good and its production would have sime supporters and some adversaries.
Majority rule is not always the most efficient way to decide public goods; as we have seen in the second case, the cost-benefit analysis yields that the fireworks are not worth it but they are approved by the majority nonetheless.
The final sentence is correct. The differing preferences of the people make a clearcut choice impossible and the government has to take into account various tradeoffs and compromises in order to determine which public goods to provide.
well think about it in a variety of different ways, a free market economy can affect anyone's daily life, that being, in a free market economy a person can make any choice he or she wants with little or no government interference
hope I was able to help ~kashout kam
Answer:
The correct answer is option D.
Explanation:
The use of plastic to produce bicycle helmets will reduce the amount of resources available to other industries that use plastic. If an industry is making helmets from plastic, they are using plastic as inputs in the production process. This will cause a reduction in the quantity of plastic available.
This plastic is used by other industries as well. They will experience a reduction in the resources available to them.
