Answer:
Quasi Contract:
In the case of Lindquist Ford, Inc. v. Middleton Motors, Inc., 557 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2009) the trial court settled money damages to Lindquist. The Court of Appeals reversed the result that the trial court had mismanaged the mutual law theories of quantum meruit and unjust augmentation and imprisoned for a new trial. The trial court settled damages to Lindquist and Miller for Miller's salary.
Explanation:
The necessities to improve on the quasi-contract theory are as follows:
- The party looking for damages discussed a benefit on the other party.
- That party also discussed the benefit with the sensible expectation of being paid.
- The party was not performing as a volunteer in providing this benefit.
- The party getting the benefit would be irrationally enriched if permitted to retain the benefit without disbursing for it.
All of these necessities must be encountered in order for a quasi-contract judgment to be awarded.
The necessities under unjust improvement are as follows:
- A benefit discussed upon the perpetrator by the plaintiff.
- Appreciation by the respondent of the fact of such benefit.
- Acceptance and retention by the respondent of the benefit, under conditions such that it would be discriminatory to retain the advantage without payment of the worth thereof.
Lindquist met the essentials required for unjust enhancement and the court fund in their favor.
The necessities under quantum merit are as follows:
- The complainant must prove that the respondent requested the plaintiff's services.
- It was reasonable for the applicant to expect reimbursement for the services. Lindquist met the elements compulsory for quantum meruit and the court found in their favor.
The condition most likely to be doubtful in this case is whether or not the party seeking compensations actually discussed a benefit upon the other party, or whether Lindquist essentially conferred a benefit upon Middleton through the management of Miller. The court resolute through indication presented that Lindquist and Miller had a reasonable anticipation to payment for services rendered and that Middleton received a benefit from Miller's services
Answer:
Preliminary cash balance = - $13,400.
Explanation:
We know,
Cash at hand = Preliminary cash balance + Additional borrowings from bank.
Given,
Cash at hand = $5,600
Additional borrowings from bank = $19,000
Putting the values into the formula, we can get
Cash at hand = Preliminary cash balance + Additional borrowings from bank
Or, $5,600 = Preliminary cash balance + $19,000
Or, $5,600 - $19,000 = Preliminary cash balance
Or, Preliminary cash balance = - $13,400.
Therefore, the company had no cash at the beginning; rather, they had to use other people's money.
Answer:
weighted average cost of capital = 13.10%
Explanation:
given data
Debt = 35%
Preferred stock = 15
Common equity = 50
cost of debt = 9 percent
cost of preferred stock = 13 percent
cost of common equity = 16 percent
to find out
Weighted Average cost of capital
solution
we get here weighted cost of each source of capital that is
Weighted Cost of Debt = 0.35 * 9% = 3.15 % ....................1
Weighted Cost of Preferred Stock = 0.15 * 13% = 1.95% .........2
Weighted Cost of Common Stock = 0.50 * 16% = 8 % ..............3
so
so weighted average cost of capital will be
weighted average cost of capital = 3.15 % + 1.95% + 8 %
weighted average cost of capital = 13.10%
Given that: F (Future worth) = $2,500, i (nominal interest rate)
= 0.12, compounded monthly = 12 months, years of investment = 1 year, and no.
of employees = 20. Compute using the annuity formula: A=Fi/(((1+i)^n)-1).
Calculating i = 0.12/12 = 0.01, since it is compounded monthly. Calculating n
(total number of compounding) = 1 x 12 = 12, since year of investment is equal
to 1. Substituting F=2500, i=0.01 and n=12 to the annuity formula, you will get
A=$197.12. Multiply by 20, you will get $3,942.44.
