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.
Assuming the firm's expected sales are $264,000 in which the firm break-even sales are $197,000, the margin of safety in dollars is:$67,000.
<h3>Margin of safety in dollars</h3>
Using this formula
Margin of safety in dollars=Expected sales-Break-even sales
Where:
Expected sales=$264,000
Break-even sales=$197,000
Let plug in the formula
Margin of safety in dollars=$264,000-$197,000
Margin of safety in dollars=$67,000
Inconclusion the margin of safety in dollars is: $67,000.
Learn more about margin of safety in dollars here:brainly.com/question/15190495
Answer: a. subject to analysis under the rule of reason.
Explanation:
The Rule of Reason is used to interpret whether he Sherman Act which is an anti-trust law has been breached. This Rule was established so as not to unfairly close down all monopolies and Monopolies are not illegal, price fixing is.
If companies therefore come together as Fertile Acres Inc., Growers Farm Co-op, and Harvest Orchards have done, the Government under the Rule of Reason will check to see if the actions of these firms was done in order for them to go against free trade practices. If it was not then the agreement might be allowed to stand.
Answer:
A.
Explanation:
An improve in technology will allow firms to produce in an effective way therefore, with the same resources, firms will produce more units. This will cause an increase in total supply: at the same price, firms will offer more units. In this case, at prices $1, $2, $3, $4 and $5 the new quantities will be 6,8,10,12. In the demand and supply graph, this looks as shift to the right of the supply curve (figure attached).
It is not option B because the problem says increase in quantities "at these prices". It is not option C because an increase in taxes will increase costs of production, thus firms will decrease units of production. It is not option D because changes in income will affect demand.
