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:
Current stock price will be $14.50
So option (a) will be correct answer
Explanation:
We have given dividend paid ![D_0=$0.75\ per\ share](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=D_0%3D%240.75%5C%20per%5C%20share)
Growth rate g = 6.5 %
Required return on market = 10.50 %
Risk free return = 4.50 %
![\beta =1.25](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cbeta%20%3D1.25)
So next dividend ![D_1=0.75\times (1+0.065)=$0.798](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=D_1%3D0.75%5Ctimes%20%281%2B0.065%29%3D%240.798)
We have to find thcompany current stock price ![P_0](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=P_0)
Required rate of return is given by
Required rate of return = Risk Free Return + ![\beta (market\ return-risk\ free\ return)](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cbeta%20%28market%5C%20return-risk%5C%20free%5C%20return%29)
= 4.5+1.25×(10.5-4.5) = 12 %
Now current stock price ![P_0=\frac{D_1}{R_e-g}=\frac{0.798}{0.12-0.065}=$14.50](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=P_0%3D%5Cfrac%7BD_1%7D%7BR_e-g%7D%3D%5Cfrac%7B0.798%7D%7B0.12-0.065%7D%3D%2414.50)
So option (a) will be correct option
Answer:
Loss-leader pricing
Explanation:
Loss leader pricing can be defined as a marketing strategy that entails selecting some retail products that is going to be sold below cost. This means that the retailer will not make any profit from the products being sold because the goods are being sold below the actual price.
This is done in order to get customers in the door. It is a method of enticing buyers to purchase your products.
This stategy attracts news customers because goods are being sold at significant discount to market price.
Complete question:
On January 1. Year 1. White Co. sold a property with a remaining useful life of 20 years to Blue Co. for $900.000. At the same time. White entered into a contract with Blue for the right to use the property (leaseback) for a period of 6 years. with annual rental payments of 580.000 that approximate the market rental payments for similar properties. On January 1. Year 1. the carrying amount of the property was 5680.000. and its fair value was 5770.000. A discount rate for the lease of 10% is used by both White and Blue. The present value factor for an ordinary annuity at 10% for 6 periods is 4.3553. The lease does not transfer the property to White at the end of the lease term and does not include a purchase option.
What amount of lease expense for the right of use of the property is recognised by White in Year 1 ?
A. $0
B. $130,000
C. $90,000
D. $220,000
Answer:
$90,000 amount of lease expense for the right of use of the property is recognised by White in Year 1
Explanation:
If the leaseback is known as an operating lease, the original transition to the buyer-lessor of the asset should be taken into account as the selling of an asset, given that all the income identification requirements have been fulfilled.
If the deal is of equal value, the lender lease is informed of the gain or loss of sale between the purchase price and the sum of the land that is held. Yet this is not a equal value trade. The property's sale price is higher than its market value. Accordingly, the income or loss on sale seems to be the difference between the equal worth and the value of the land.
Therefore, on 1 January, White records a benefit of $90,000 in revenue of $770,000 (fair value of $680,000 in carrying amounts)