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.
We can see here that if we assume that Starbucks increased its spending on advertising by 35 percent to increase sales in its current markets. The growth strategy this represents is: (d) Market penetration.
<h3>What is market penetration?</h3>
Market penetration actually refers to the success recorded by an organization or company in the selling of their goods and services to a specific market. Sales volume of the existing goods or services is actually used to measure market penetration.
The options that complete the question are:
(a) Market development
(b) Divesting
(c) Diversification
(d) Market penetration
(e) Product development
Thus, if Starbucks was able to increase its spending on advertising by 35 percent in order to increase sales in its current markets, then they had market penetration.
Learn more about market penetration on brainly.com/question/1172265
#SPJ1
Answer:
1. WCG agrees with its cell plan competitors to raise prices for all customers - Sherman Antitrust Act
2. WCG colludes with another company to stop offering family plan discounts - Sherman Antitrust Act
3. WCG decides to advertise a new plan that is 75 percent off the regular plan, even though it is only 20 percent less - Wheeler-Lea Act
4. WCG promises retail consumers a "wholesale" rate, even though it is the same price as always - Wheeler-Lea Act
5. WCG wants to attract more women to its plans and starts offering female consumers 30 percent off their bill - Robinson-Patman Act
6. WCG offers a discount to teenage males in an effort to get customers from its more trendy competitor - Robinson-Patman Act
Answer:
Cost of Goods Sold Dr.
To Supplies Expense
Explanation:
The journal entry for cost of goods sold should've been:
Cost of goods sold A/C Dr.
To Purchases A/C
(Being cost of goods sold expense recorded)
The wrong entry passed has been:
Supplies expenses A/C Dr.
To Purchases A/C
The rectifying (correcting) journal entry should be:
Cost of Goods Sold A/c Dr.
To Supplies Expenses A/C
(Being rectification entry for cost of goods sold recorded)
Cost of goods sold is an expense and expenses should be debited.
At the same time, purchase being a nominal account, crediting it would reduce the purchases balance.
Supplies expense was wrongly debited so it has been credited to cancel out the effect.
