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:
1. a. Only major materials and components.
Only the major materials and components are include as direct materials because these are the materials that directly needed for production.
b. Only hourly production workers (aka assembly workers).
The direct labor has to be those people who are directly involved in production which in this case is the assembly workers. Managers and Supervisors are not integral so are not direct labor.
c. Both big items that cannot be traced (e.g., factory rent) and small items that are not worth tracing (e.g., glue, grease).
All other items involved in production should be included as manufacturing overheads including big items and small items that cannot be traced.
2.
Rent for the factory building ⇒ <u>Manufacturing Overhead (OH).</u>
Cost of engines used in production ⇒ <u>Direct materials (DM).</u>
Depreciation on production equipment ⇒ <u>Manufacturing Overhead (OH). </u>
Cost of lubricant used in production. ⇒<u> Manufacturing Overhead (OH). </u>
Production supervisor's salary. ⇒ <u>Manufacturing Overhead (OH). </u>
Assembly workers' wages. ⇒ <u>Direct Labor.</u>
The leading cause of sources of petroleum in North America is because of the Exclusive Economic Zone. This has resulted in several petroleum companies queuing up in North America. Business wise economic zones are of high importance as they are given several facilities that are not available elsewhere.
Answer:
Under the UPA ( uniform partnership act ) the partners share the profits of the business according to their contributions towards the business ( mostly financial contribution)
The UPA is used to address the issues of profit and loss sharing in a business partnership based on financial contribution towards the business and not based on service rendered to the business hence it won't work in this situation
Explanation:
Under the UPA ( uniform partnership act ) the partners share the profits of the business according to their contributions towards the business ( mostly financial contribution), the primary purpose of the uniform partnership act to to address certain in-formal or formal issue that was not addressed under the business agreement reached between the partners,
The reason why the UPA might not govern the sharing of the profits is because of the involvement of a partner who did not contribute towards the capital but contributes in terms of service. The UPA is used to address the issues of profit and loss sharing in a business partnership based on financial contribution towards the business and not based on service rendered to the business hence it won't work in this situation
Answer and Explanation:
The two entries for closing the accounts are shown below:
1 Fees earned $542,145
To Income Summary $542,145
(Being revenue accounts are closed)
2 Income Summary Dr $475,565
To Wages expense $349,700
To Rent Expense $83,900
To Supplies Expense $31,475
To Miscellaneous expense $10,490
(Being expense accounts are closed)
These two entries should be recorded
