Answer:
ur mom. stop asking for help on other ppls questions
Explanation:
Answer:
Consumers should not buy from companies that don't source materials
Explanation:
Companies should never have an excuse for not sourcing for their materials responsively and responsibly. They owe an ethical responsibility as well as a duty to offer their customers qualitative products at the best price and that is most sustainable to the environment.In recent times, through the widespread use of social media and the instrument of investigative journalism, it has been able to bring to the surface, the less than responsible activities of many companies in sourcing for their interest of the public and the environment.The 2006 movie "Blood Diamond" shows an avid description of how diamonds are mined and traded in the war-torn country of Sierra Leonne depicting the violation of Human and Child rights and how is excessively enriched diamond suppliers and companies.It is clear that many companies despite the public outcry for transparency in revealing their supply chain in sourcing for their materials still chose unorthodox practices. It therefore, falls on the consumers to spend their money responsibly and make smart and credible choices with their finances by refusing to buy from companies that are not transparent with their source materials.Consumers are the life-wire of any business and the hope of any business survival rests majorly on consumer satisfaction. Researches have shown that companies are no being accountable with the natural resources are utilized and have been used to cause serious harm to people and the environment. Since the companies manage to evade adequate regulations and responsibilities, it falls on the consumers to ensure that their money serves them to the greatest value.
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.
Be honest about your qualifications
