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:
Mixing= $112,000
Bottling= $91,800
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Mixing occupies 23,045 square feet
Bottling occupies 18,855 square feet.
Total sq= 41,900
Indirect factory costs include maintenance costs of $204,000.
First, we need to calculate the proportion of square feet for each department:
Mixing= 23,045/41,900= 0.55
Bottling= 18,855/41,900= 0.45
Now, we can allocate overhead:
Mixing= 0.55*204,000= $112,000
Bottling= 0.45*204,000= $91,800
Answer:
The reason to prepare the consolidation worksheet is to maintain the record of what is finally entered in the books to record the transactions in between the holding and subsidiary.
This basically thus, requires the elimination of all the assets and liabilities of the subsidiary, and creation of such assets and liabilities into the balances of the holding(parent) company. In this manner the elimination is necessary to record.
So that there is no error in the form of multiple record of assets and liabilities, or in the form of no record of assets and liabilities of the subsidiary.
Answer:
The leadership team meets weekly to update each other on what events are taking place in each unit. Each division director completes an update report to be attached to the minutes. Since many of the division directors meet with each other, there are rarely any surprises. This weekly communication calls for <u>an increased number of face to face meetings.</u>
Explanation:
This is an example of face to face meetings and quite an increase of the same in the organization in order to update each other on the events that are taking place in the organization.
