Answer:
d. debit Accounts Receivable; credit Cash
Explanation:
The cash has been credited with $695 instead of $965 which means that $270 has been credited short. Same way, the liabilities have been debited by $270 short. So, we will have to reverse the entry ie. debit Accounts Receivable; credit Cash
Answer:
$538,685
Explanation:
Calculation to determine what Scarbrough will receive and record cash of
Receivables $600,000
Less: Amount of the hold back ($30,000)
($600,000 x 5%)
Less: Withheld as fee income ($18,000)
($600,000 x 3%)
Less: Withheld as interest expense ($13,315)
($600,000 × 15% × 54/365)
Cash $538,685
($600,000-$30,000-$18,000-$13,315)
Therefore Scarbrough will receive and record cash of $538,685
Answer:
Date
Explanation:
Simple and is easy is that my partners
Answer:
Product Implied Warranty
According to the Uniform Commercial Code, a product warranty guarantees that a product will work when used for its intended purposes. There are two key types of implied warranties: merchantability and fitness. The implied warranty of merchantability states that a product will meet reasonable expectations of the buyer. The implied warranty of fitness means that the product will meet the buyer's intended use.
Based on the above, we can conclude that the implied warranty of merchantability actually exists for the hair dryer. However, Patrick clearly violated it in this situation through the accident of dropping it in water.
Having thus violated the warranty, he cannot reasonably recover any damages from the company.
Explanation:
a) Facts of the case:
1. Every hair dryer is properly labeled and contains safety precautions against misuse.
2. The SF9000 hair dryer that Patrick purchased functioned properly for a month.
3. Patrick accidentally drops the hair dryer in water, causing him an electric shock.
4. Patrick sues for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
Answer:
c. No; the facts of this situation do not provide reasonable grounds for a stop and search. Any attempt to do so by store security could result in a claim of false imprisonment.
Explanation:
According to the situation described in the question above, store security has no right to stop and search for Jeff. Therefore, the letter c is the most correct answer to this question.
Jeff's actions in the store do not provide sufficient reasons for there to be any kind of stop and research, as the facts in the situation do not provide enough information about an illegal act, so if store security forces a situation there could be legal damage to the store .
Therefore, it is essential that stores adopt a theft prevention strategy, with an effective security system and a team prepared to carry out correct approaches.
