Answer:
Compound interest; interest.
Explanation:
Compound interest can be defined as the interest that the bank pays you on the principal plus on the interest that you earned the preceding year. Thus, it is simply calculated by adding an interest to the initial principal i.e compounding the interest rather than withdrawal.
Mathematically, compound interest is given by the formula;
Where;
A is the future value.
P is the principal or starting amount.
r is annual interest rate.
n is the number of times the interest is compounded in a year.
t is the number of years for the compound interest.
Answer:
Dividend paid during the year will be $55000
So option (B) will be the correct answer
Explanation:
We have given dividend declared during the year=$60000
Dividend payable at the beginning of the year=$20000
Dividend payable at the end of the year=$25000
We have to find the dividend paid during year
Dividend paid during the year=Dividend payable at the beginning of the year+ Dividend declared during the year-Dividend payable balance at the end of the year
Dividend paid during the year=$20000+$60000-$25000=$55000
So option (b) will be the correct answer
Answer:
The value of the stock at the given discount rate is $9.5
Explanation:
Here, we are interested in calculating the value of the stock at the given discount rate.
To do this, we employ a mathematical formula;
Value of the stock = Expected dividend ÷ (discount rate-growth rate)
According to the question, we identify the following;
Expected dividend = $1.58
Growth rate(negative) = -1.15% = -1.15/100 = -0.0115
Discount rate = 15.5% = 15.5/100 = 0.155
Plugging these values into the equation, we have;
Value of the stock = 1.58 ÷ (0.155 - (-0.0115)
Value of the stock = 1.58/(0.155 + 0.0115)
Value of the stock = 1.58/0.1665 = $9.5
The answer is geodemographic segmentation. This is a multivariate measurable characterization strategy for finding whether the people of a populace fall into various gatherings by making quantitative examinations of numerous attributes with the presumption that the distinctions inside any gathering ought to be not as much as the contrasts between gatherings.
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.
