Sydney Retailing (buyer) and Troy Wholesalers (seller) enter into the following transactions. May 11 Sydney accepts delivery of $29,000 of merchandise it purchases for resale from Troy: invoice dated May 11; terms 3/10, n/90; FOB shipping point. The goods cost Troy $19,430. Sydney pays $655 cash to Express Shipping for delivery charges on the merchandise.
12 Sydney returns $1,300 of the $29,000 of goods to Troy, who receives them the same day and restores them to its inventory. The returned goods had cost Troy $871.
20 Sydney pays Troy for the amount owed. Troy receives the cash immediately.

(Both Sydney and Troy use a perpetual inventory system and the gross method.)

1. Prepare journal entries that Sydney Retailing (buyer) records for these three transactions.
2. Prepare journal entries that Troy Wholesalers (seller) records for these three transactions.
Sydney accepts delivery of $29,000 of merchandise it purchases for resale from Troy: invoice dated May 11; terms 3/10, n/90; FOB shipping point. The goods cost Troy $19,430.Sydney pays $655 cash to Express Shipping for delivery charges on the merchandise. Sydney returns $1,300 of the $29,000 of goods to Troy, who receives them the same day and restores them to its inventory. The returned goods had cost Troy $871.Sydney pays Troy for the amount owed. Troy receives the cash immediately.

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.