<u>Solution and Explanation:</u>
The following would be the specifications of the training module for the cashiers:
1. There would be multiple modules consisting of the job responsibilities as refresher courses and at the same time, the new market conditions and additional job related things that they must be doing in the near future would be the other modules.
2. The key areas that the multi module training program would be focussing on would be, customer relationship training, system and data maintenance training, documentation and accounting module
3. The training intervention would be preferably on job and alongside there would be a mentor/coach allotted to the cashiers who are experts in the field preferably store managers and functional experts. For the system related modules, they would be having simulation based modules. Only during the non rush-hours there would be offline training and update sessions with respect to the progress made on their training and the productivity improvement they have achieved over the past week.
The incentives associated with the productivity improvement would be translated into incentivising the cashiers to take up the training modules. The weekly update on the productivity improvement and the progress in their training would inturn make them competitive in nature. While coming to why such distribution has been done with respect to the modules, essentially if we look at the job of the cashiers, it’s a round the clock job and they would lose out on precious working hours if the training is done on an offline basis.
The simulations would definitely help understand the process but the on job training would be the one that is standing out, as they would be continuing their task and at the same time, the result is right in front on them to experience and therefore the distribution of the modules to not stress them out and at the same time not losing out on their time as well.
Given:
<span>Fact 1: During contract negotiations, BB’s sales representative promised that the system was “A-1” and “perfect.”
</span><span>Fact 2: The written contract, which the parties later signed, disclaimed all warranties, express and implied.
</span><span>Fact 3: After installation the computer produced only random numbers and letters, rather than the desired accounting information
The express warranty is given in Fact 1 where the Sales Rep promised that the system was "A-1" and "perfect". There is a breach in express warranty here IF the written contract also expresses the same promises.
However, the written contract </span>disclaimed all warranties, express and implied. AND BOTH PARTIES SIGNED THIS CONTRACT. It implies that the buyer has read through the contract and has agreed with what is written in the contract. Thus, they can't file a suit against BB for breaching an express warranty since the written and signed contract has already disclaimed all warranties.
A coase solution to a problem of externality ensures that a socially efficient outcome is to maximize the joint welfare, irrespective of the right of ownership.
Explanation:
In law and in economics the Coase theorem explains the economic efficiencies in the existence of externalities. The economic efficiency of economic allocation or outcome. In practice, barriers to negotiation or poorly defined rights of property can prevent coasean negotiations.
The private external solutions include, for the benefit of the relevant parties, moral codes, charities and business fusions and contracts. In the theorem, two parties can bargain and obtain an optimal outcome in the presence of an externality when transaction cost is low.
Answer:
8.5%
Explanation:
The computation of the percentage offer on its commercial paper is presented below:
= Annualized T-bill rates + credit risk premium + liquidity premium
= 8% + 0.3% + 0.2%
= 8% + 0.5%
= 8.5%
In order to determine the percentage offer it would be 8.5% by considering all the percentage rate that is mentioned in the question
Answer:
The calculations are shown below:
Explanation:
The calculations are shown below:
a. The expected rate of return is
Return = Risk free return + Beta × (Market return - risk free return)
= 5% + 1.9 × (11.20% - 5%)
= 5% + 11.78%
= 16.78%
b. Now the alpha is
Alpha = Actual rate of return - Expected rate of return
= 9.2% - 16.78%
= - 7.58%
c. No , the CAPM is not valid as the expected rate of return is more than the actual rate of return