Answer:
The answer is: No
Explanation:
In order for this clause to be enforceable against Malik or his friend Jecala, they should have been notified about it before they purchased the ticket. Oceanfront is changing the contract terms unilaterally without notifying the other party and that is not legal. A contract (the ticket is a type of contract) is an agreement between two parties, not one party imposing his conditions over the other.
The short answer is that they are trusted more.
I would pick D.
Answer:
Weak because of proximate cause is difficult to prove in absence of other similarly affected individuals
Explanation:
Since in the question it is mentioned that the 60 year old man have a lung cancer so he sues the asbestos manufacturer also he trust that it is unsafe as her friend who use the alternative material has not have a lung cancer so here the case would be weak as of proximate cause as it is difficult for proving it
Therefore the same is to be considered
Answer:
The Scion xA EAC: -7,953.41
The Toyota Prius EAC: -8,043.16
Explanation:
<em>The equivalent cost is the PMT of the present worth of the asset,</em> so the first step to solve for EAC is to calculate the present worth:
<u>The Scion xA:</u>
Purchase 15,500
Present value of the cash flow needs:
C 1,500
time 3
rate 0.12
PV $3,602.7469
<u><em>Present worth: </em></u>15,500 + 3,602.75 = 19,102.75
<em>Now, we calcualte the PMT:</em>
PV 19,103
time 3
rate 0.12
C $ 7,953.410
<u>Toyota Prius:</u>
Purchase: 22,000
present value of annual OCF
C 800
time 4
rate 0.12
PV $2,429.8795
present worth: 24,429.88
Equivalent annual cost:
PV 24,430
time 4
rate 0.12
C: $ 8,043.158