Obtain a customer signed statement acknowledging that an annuity transaction is not recommended if a customer decides to enter into an annuity transaction that is not based on the insurance producer's or insurer's recommendation.
<h3>Who is responsible for verifying your suitability?</h3>
The insurer or third party delegate authorized pursuant to section 224.
6(c) of Regulation 187 conducts a suitability review prior to the issuance of an insurance product or the effectuation of a sales transaction; and.
The insurer has procedures designed to prevent financial exploitation and abuse.
<h3>What factors are important considerations when determining suitability of an annuity sale?</h3>
Suitability Information Gathered by an Insurer
- Age.
- Annual income.
- Financial situation and needs, including the financial resources you're using to fund the annuity.
- Financial experience.
- Financial goals and objectives.
- Intended use of the annuity.
- Financial time horizon.
Learn more about insurance here:
<h3>
brainly.com/question/15171641</h3><h3 /><h3>#SPJ4</h3>
Answer:
Select the course of action
Explanation:
Because it’s the next step after collecting relevant information and evaluating each alternatives
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:
The firm should shut down the production.
Explanation:
The given marginal costs = $25
Fixed cost of the production = $5000
The price of producing the 50 units of meals = $10
The new price of the meal when demand goes up = $20
Since it can be seen that the price of the meal is lower than the average cost or even it is less than the marginal cost. So, when the prices are lower than average cost then a firm should shut down the production because after shutting down the production the loss will be equal to the fixed cost only.
So, the firm should shut down the production.
Answer:
The tax that must be added to the C corporation tax liability for the year before the S election = $49000*1/4=$12250
The rest of the three instalments of $12250 each will be paid with Lent Corporation's next three tax returns
Explanation:
FIFO Value/basis =$650000
LIFO value/basis =$510000
Difference =$140000
35% Tax =$140000*35% = $49000
The tax that must be added to the C corporation tax liability for the year before the S election = $49000*1/4=$12250
The rest of the three instalments of $12250 each will be paid with Lent Corporation's next three tax returns
