Self-described "sports nut" gary baker signed up for a three-year club-seat "package" that entitled him and a companion to tickets for 41 boston bruin hockey games and 41 boston celtic basketball games at the new boston garden corporation’s fleet center for approximately $18,000 per year. after one year, baker stopped paying for the tickets thinking that he would simply lose his $5,000 security deposit. new boston sued baker for breach of contract, seeking the balance due on the tickets of $34,866. at trial, baker argued to the jury that although he had breached his contract, new boston had an obligation to mitigate damages, for example, by treating his empty seats and those of others in the same situation as "rush seats" shortly before game time and selling them at a discount. new boston argued that just as a used luxury car cannot be returned for a refund, a season ticket cannot be canceled without consequences. decide.

The u.s. stock market has returned an average of about 9% per year since 1900. this return works out to a real return (i.e., adjusted for inflation) of approximately 6% per year. if you invest $100,000 and you earn 6% a year on it, how much real purchasing power will you have in 30 years?

Grant, inc., acquired 30% of south co.’s voting stock for $200,000 on january 2, year 1, and did not elect the fair value option. the price equaled the carrying amount and the fair value of the interest purchased in south’s net assets. grant’s 30% interest in south gave grant the ability to exercise significant influence over south’s operating and financial policies. during year 1, south earned $80,000 and paid dividends of $50,000. south reported earnings of $100,000 for the 6 months ended june 30, year 2, and $200,000 for the year ended december 31, year 2. on july 1, year 2, grant sold half of its stock in south for $150,000 cash. south paid dividends of $60,000 on october 1, year 2. before income taxes, what amount should grant include in its year 1 income statement as a result of the investment?

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.