All categories

5 days ago

Marcus, feeling stressed out from work, decided to search for a meditation app for his phone that would help him relax during th

e day. One app, CalmDown, appeared to be promising. It didn't have any reviews yet and looked to be a brand-new app, so he decided to try it out. He downloaded the app to his phone and opened it up. The first screen required he enter in his name and email address. At the very bottom of the screen it had some small writing, but Marcus didn't notice it and hit the continue button.
Had Marcus clicked on the link at the bottom of the screen, he would have seen the following:
The second screen stated "Three-day trial version- Free! $59.99 annual fee thereafter." Marcus was annoyed that the app would cost him almost $60 but figured he would set a reminder on his phone to cancel the app before the trial period expired so he wouldn't get charged. Plus, he wanted to see the app in action. If it was actually worth the price, he wouldn't mind paying the annual fee. He clicked "Continue" and put in his bank card information on the next screen. The following screen asked Marcus a series of questions about his stress level and what he felt caused stress in his life. He clicked "high" and "work" as the level and cause. He then completed the first CalmDown meditation in the app, but was not impressed with its functionality. Deciding he would cancel his subscription immediately, he went into the profile settings to try to find the cancel option but couldn't. He searched every possible place on the app but didn't see a way to cancel the subscription. Marcus decided to try to find the app's developer through their website, but a quick search didn't turn up anything. Already stressed and becoming more frustrated, Marcus decided to contact the app store. They informed him that he should be able to go into his app store account and cancel the subscription there. However, when Marcus went there, he didn't see the app as an option or as a subscription. Thinking that maybe his subscription didn't process, he just deleted the app from his phone.
Marcus didn't give the app or the subscription any more thought, becoming increasingly more distracted by the amount of stress at work. Four months later, Marcus was looking at his bank account online and noticed it was lower than it should have been. He began reviewing the charges and noticed multiple charges for $59.99 to a merchant named "CDgotU." He immediately remembered the app and contacted his bank to dispute the charges. His bank replied that due to the charges being debit withdraws he needed to dispute them within 2 days of being made. Moreover, if he had been diligent about watching his account, they could have put a block on the account and the remaining fraudulent charges would have been prevented. The bank representative also told him that he should try to get a refund from the company that charged him. After making his case with the bank representative for several hours about how he tried to cancel his subscription, he was unsuccessful. The bank's representative was able to provide Marcus a phone number attached to the Merchant account, but when Marcus called the number it was disconnected. The bank could not provide him with any additional information such as a company address or website.
After more internet searching, Marcus saw a number of other complaints online about the app, and noticed it had been removed from the app store and was no longer available for download. Marcus decided to bring an action against the company for fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and several other claims in his home state of Vermont.
The maker of CalmDown argues that it should not be subject to the jurisdiction of any state court other than Alaska. Which of the following, if true, is CalmDown's best argument against being subject to any other state's jurisdiction?
a. It merely conducted some activity outside of Alaska and that activity took place through a website.
b. This is not a federal question.
c. Its principle place of business is Alaska and it does not have locations in any other state.
d. The amount in controversy is not over $75,000.

Business

You might be interested in

Suppose your expenses for this term are as follows: tuition: $10,000, room and board: $6,000, books and other educational suppli

soldi70 [3635]

Opportunity cost is defined as the loss incurred when one chooses one alternative over another.

In this scenario, the forgone option is full-time work along with other costs associated with that period when opting for schooling instead. Room and board expenses remain constant whether attending school or working full time, thus these are not factored in. Earnings from part-time work during school are deducted as they would have been earned during full-time employment.

Thus;
Opportunity cost = $20,000+$10,000+$1,000-$8,000 = $23,000

6 0

2 months ago

Morgan Company's budgeted income statement reflects the following amounts:Sales Purchases ExpensesJanuary $ 120,000 $ 78,000 $ 2

soldi70 [3635]

The expected cash balance at the end of February is $113,300.

7 0

2 months ago

J. Morgan and M. Halsted are partners who share income and loss in a 3:1 ratio. After several unprofitable periods, the two part

harina [3808]

Response:

cash 110,000 debit

land 100,000 credit

gain from disposal 10,000 credit

--to document the land sale--

accounts payable 80,000 debit

cash 80,000 credit

--to record the settlement of debts--

gain from disposal 10,000 debit

Morgan 7,500 credit

Halsted 2,500 credit

--to allocate gains from sale--

Morgan 22,500

Halsted 7,500

Cash 30,000

--to dissolve the partnership--

Clarification:

ratio 3:1 (3+1=4)

Morgan 15,000 share of 3/4 = 75%

Halsted 5,000 share of 1/4 = 25%

a gain of 10,000 from the sale is shared as follows

Morgan 10,000 x 75% = 7,500

Halsted 10,000 x 25% = 2,500

Next, we close the accounts against cash

8 0

1 month ago

Smyth Industries operated as a monopolist for the past several years, earning annual profits amounting to $50 million, which it

Katen [3525]

Answer:

To begin with, we require a discount rate; in researching similar questions, I found that the discount rates ranged from 4% to 8%, so I opted for 6%.

The company has two options: continue operating in a competitive market or reduce its prices to eliminate competition.

Utilizing the perpetuity formula, the present value for the first option is calculated as follows: = $10,000,000 / 0.06 = $166,666,667

For the second option, the present value is:

PV of price reduction = $1,000,000,000 / 1.06 = $943,396,226 plus the present value of future net income

The present value of future net income = $50,000,000 / 0.06 = $833,333,333, but this figure must be discounted as the terminal value relates to the end of the current year, not now: $833,333,333 / 1.06 = $786,163,552

Consequently, the NPV associated with lowering prices is $786,163,552 - $943,396,226 = -$157,232,674, indicating this is certainly not a favorable plan.

3 0

2 months ago