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.
Answer: 18,000
Explanation:
Liability policy:
= 2,000
Insurance expense 2018:
= No. of months from 1 Jan 2018 to 31 Dec 2018 × Insurance expense per month
= 12 × 2,000
= 24,000
Prepaid insurance balance for liability policy on 31 Dec, 2018:
= Prepaid Insurance for liability policy - Insurance expense 2018
= 36,000 - 24,000
= 12,000
Crop damage policy:
= 500
Insurance expense 2018:
= No. of months from 1 Jan 2018 to 31 Dec 2018 × Insurance expense per month
= 12 × 500
= 6,000
Prepaid insurance balance for crop damage policy on 31 Dec, 2018:
= Prepaid Insurance for crop damage policy - Insurance expense 2018
= 12,000 - 6,000
= 6,000
Therefore,
Total prepaid insurance balance on 31 Dec 2018:
= Prepaid insurance balance for liability policy on 31 Dec, 2018 + Prepaid insurance balance for crop damage policy on 31 Dec, 2018
= 12,000 + 6,000
= 18,000
Answer:
Stock's current market value = $44.87
Explanation:
We can solve this stock valuation problem using DDM (Dividend Discount Model).
Lets find the dividends for the years:
D0 = $1.32
D1 = $1.32*1.3 = $1.716
D2 = $1.716*1.1 = $1.888
D3 = $1.888*1.05 = $1.982
The formula of stock valuation:
Lets calculate the terminal value after Year 3 afterwards:
<u>Note:</u> rate of return, k_e = 0.09 (given) and growth rate (g) is 5% or 0.05
Now,
The present value of the stocks is gotten using formula:
So, we have:
Stock's current market value = $44.87
It would be B. I know this due to my sister just going to college and having to focus on the price range.
Answer: A. Total Assets are overstated as of May 31, 2020 and May 2020 Net Income is overstated
Explanation:
Capitalizing the costs of the maintenance means that the $14,000 was taken to the Machinery Account which is an asset when in fact it should have been taken to the Maintenance Expense account which is an expense. This will increase the Asset account for May by $14,000 when it should not have meaning that the Asset account is now Overstated.
Net Income is acquired by deducting expenses from Sales/Revenue. The $14,000 which should never have been recorded as an Asset but instead as an expense, will mean that this Expense will not be deducted from the Net Income because it is being recognized as an Asset. This will mean that the Net Income for May will be Overstated by $14,000 which was supposed to be removed from it.
