Answer:
The answer is $26.80.
Explanation:
*Some inputs for the calculation as below:
One year period has 52 weeks
=> At the time she turns 68, she will have: (68-18) x 52 = 2,600 equal weekly cash flows; At the time she turns 47, she will have: (47-18) x 52 = 1,508 equal weekly cash flows.
* Present value of the investment plan lasting until she turns 68:
[ 24 / (7%:52) ] x [ 1 - (1+ (7%/52)^(-2,600) ] = $17,289.
* To have the same retirement nest egg at age 68, the present value of the investment plan lasting until she turns 47 should be equal to $17,289. Denote x is the weekly investment under the shorter investment scenario, we have:
[x / (7%:52) ] x [ 1 - (1+ (7%/52)^(-1,508) ] = $17,289 <=> x = $26.80.
You have create a blog of visions of the past and future
Answer:
No she won't.
Explanation:
Vicki will not be able to present evidence as to the sales representative's statements concerning the warranty that "This writing is the full and final expression of the parties' agreement; anything said before signing or while signing is irrelevant." thereby excluding the car's warranty.
Hence, any evidence of the discussion of the warranty would most likely be excluded by the parol evidence rule.
