Mason bought a rotisserie in preparation for a party he was planning. When he put a chicken on the rotisserie, it would not rotate, but stayed in one position where it burned the chicken on one side and left it raw on the other. When he returned the rotisserie to the store, the salesperson disclaimed any responsibility because he had never told Mason the rotisserie would rotate the food as it cooked. Does Mason have any recourse?

What is the relationship among market segmentation, target markts, and consumer profiles?

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.

The east asiatic company (eac), a danish company with subsidiaries throughout asia, has been funding its bangkok subsidiary primarily with u.s. dollar debt because of the cost and availability of dollar capital as opposed to thai baht-denominated (b) debt. the treasurer of eac-thailand is considering a 1-year bank loan for $247,000.the current spot rate is b32.03 /$, and the dollar-based interest is 6.78% for the 1-year period. 1-year loans are 12.04% in baht.a. assuming expected inflation rates of 4.3 % and 1.24% in thailand and the united states, respectively, for the coming year, according to purchase power parity, what would the effective cost of funds be in thai baht terms? b. if eac's foreign exchange advisers believe strongly that the thai government wants to push the value of the baht down against the dollar by5% over the coming year (to promote its export competitiveness in dollar markets), what might the effective cost of funds end up being in baht terms? c. if eac could borrow thai baht at 13% per annum, would this be cheaper than either part (a) or part (b) above?