Jessica hires chromalite builders corp. to construct a house. the contract specifies that grade a+ carpeting is to be installed on the entire second floor. chromalite builders accidentally installs grade a carpeting instead. few people, except for carpeting experts, can tell the difference. jessica, however, refuses to pay for the construction citing that chromalite builders has breached the contract. which of the following statements is true in this scenario?
a. the courts are likely to consider chromalite builders’s performance as a substantial performance, and jessica will have to pay something but not the full amount; i. e. she is entitled to monetary damages
b. jessica has materially breached the contract by refusing to pay chromalite builders; hence, she cannot sue chromalite builders for the use of low-grade carpeting.
c. jessica can claim a breach of contract and refuse to pay chromalite builders for the construction of the house.
d. the courts are likely to declare that chromalite builders has materially breached the contract and will ask jessica to pay exactly half the cost originally mentioned in the contract.
e. the courts are likely to consider chromalite builders’s performance as complete performance, and jessica will have to pay the full amount to chromalite builders.

This problem has been solved! see the answercompute and interpret altman's z-scoresfollowing is selected financial information for ebay, for its fiscal years 2005 and 2006.(in millions, except per share data) 2006 2005current assets $ 4,970.59 $ 3,183.24current liabilities 2,518.39 1,484.93total assets 13,494.01 11,788.99total liabilities 2,589.38 1,741.00shares outstanding 1,368.51 1,404.18retained earnings 4,538.35 2,819.64stock price per share 30.07 43.22sales 5,969.74 4,552.40earnings before interest and taxes 1,439.77 1,445.18compute and interpret altman z-scores for the company for both years. (do not round until your final answer; then round your answers to two decimal places.)2006 z-score = answer2005 z-score = answerwhich of the following best describes the company's likelihood to go bankrupt given the z-score in 2006 compared to 2007.the z-score in 2006 is half of the 2005 score. both z-scores are well above the score that represents a healthy company.the z-score in 2006 is double the 2005 score. the z-score has increased sharply, which suggests the company has greatly increased the risk of bankruptcy.the z-score in 2006 is half of the 2005 score. the z-score has decreased sharply, which suggests the company is in financial distress.the z-score in 2006 is double the 2005 score. the z-score has increased sharply, which suggests the company has greatly lowered the risk of bankruptcy.