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:
22.98%
Explanation:
Here, the current entry means the ratio between the long term debt and the total assets
In mathematically,
= Long term debt ÷ total assets
where,
Total assets = Account receivable + cash + inventories + net fixed assets
= $397,400 + $47,500 + $288,000 + $999,000
= $1,731,900
And, the long term debt is $398,024
Now put these values to the above formula
So, the ratio would equal to
= $398,024 ÷ $1,731,900
= 22.98%
Answer: prohibits reprisals against whistleblowers by their superiors.
Whistleblowers are persons, who report illegal activities by an employer, government or organization. Since whistleblowers may risk retaliation from these groups for disclosing such information, a state and federal protection act for whistleblowers (WPA) was created to protect them. The act prohibits reprisals against whistleblowers by their superiors.
Answer:
The answer is: 4,500 miles
Explanation:
Lesa can only deduct 4,500 miles as transportation expenses form her taxable income. She could include any other related expenses like parking fees, tolls, etc., that she spent during her business related trips.
The 7,000 miles she drove to and form work are not considered business expenses, since going to work is not an actual part of working. It's like an employee trying to get paid for the time he or she spends in a bus going to work.
Answer:
standard deviation
Explanation:
Systemic risk is risk inherent in a market and cannot be diversified.
systemic risk is measured by beta
unsystemic risk is risk specific to a business and it can be eliminated by diversifying portfolio
the sum of systemic and unsystemic risk gives total risk and it is measured by standard deviation
