Rule I is correct.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Year Cash flow Pv at 8% Discounted cash flow
0 100000 1 100000
1 26000 0.9259 24074.074
2 26000 0.8573 22290.809
3 26000 0.7938 20639.638
4 26000 0.7350 19110.776
5 26000 0.6806 17695.163
From the above calculation, the net present value is $203810.46
Option 1 Option 2
NPV 203810.5 200000
Payback 5 years 0 years
IRR No IRR No IRR
NPV (Net present value) option say that former would be selected
So, answer is Rule I only.
Answer:
No
Explanation:
An investment that "promises" a 44 percent annual return is most likely a scam, because even the riskiest stocks rarely yield annual returns higher than 10% of the initial investment.
Besides, the option is described as very complicated, and you as a potential investor do not understand it well, which is a very difficult position to be in because it could even lead you to being scammed without realizing.
<span>GDP = C + I + G + NX = $5.5 trillion + $1 trillion + $1.5 trillion + $.75 trillion - $1.25 trillion = $7.5 trillion
Business is hard T^T</span>
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.
