Answer:
The correct answer is: Assumption of the risk.
Explanation:
If the risk inherent in a particular action that caused an injury is knowingly and voluntarily assumed, you cannot sue anyone to recover the damages. Suppose, for example, a situation in which he went to a friend's house and was warned about the use of the back door because the floor cover was seriously damaged and would not support a person's weight on it. If you have decided to ignore the warning and use the back door, the doctrine of risk taking will probably prevent the recovery of injuries sustained by a fall on that floor. The court will decide that you "assumed the risk" of such injury.
Are there options? If not I’d say management.
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:Extrinsic rewards: concrete rewards that employee receive. ...
Intrinsic rewards: tend to give personal satisfaction to individual.
Explanation:
Answer:
10%
Explanation:
Given that,
Interest at last year debt = 8%
Current year cost of debt = 25% higher
Firms paid for debt last year = 10%
Firms paid for debt in current year = 12.50%
Kd - cost of debt
Yield = Interest at last year debt × (1 + increase in cost of debt)
= 8% × (1 + 0.25)
= 8% × 1.25
= 10%
Kd = Yield (1 – T)
Kd = 10% (1 – 0)
= 10% (1)
= 10%
Therefore, after tax cost of debt would be 10%.
