Answer:
The year was 1789 when George Washington became president.
Answer:
Its better to buy a house only if you want to benefit from increase in property value
Step by Step Explanation:
If you buy a house rather than renting :
1.) The property value increase when the demand for the property increase. So, if the property demand in a particular area increases then we can get benefit from the increased property value only if we have a house in that particular area. In case we rent a house we cannot get a benefit from the increase property value.
2). If we want to stay in a house for a few months then it is not better to buy a house as buying a house involves a lot of transactions as compared with renting a house. So to avoid extra transactions and money just because of few months, its better to rent a house instead of buying a house.
3). If we are living in a rented house then the upfront costs all comes under the landlord and the tenants have not to worry about the extra costs. But if you buy a house then its your property and all the up fronts costs are all your responsibilities to pay.
Thus, Its better to buy a house only if you want to benefit from increase in property value
<span>Is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law? How do you know? It's a civil law because it's a misunderstanding between two civilians.
</span><span>Is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or combination? How do you know? I believe it might be a combination of statue and regulation law because there's some documentation and exchange item.
</span>Determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? It is to protect the people's rights, not safety. " She says that he has not made any payments and still has possession of the car." <span>The disagreement is over a vehicle which is just property.
</span>Do you think the young woman has a valid argument that her neighbor owes her payment for the car? In other words, should government make an exception to the law about the owner being the person whose name is on the title? I think she does not have a valid argument. "<span> She signed ownership over to him on the title, which he also signed. She says that he has not made any payments and still has possession of the car." </span><span>If she wants to sell her car, she should have done it the proper way, otherwise she should be prepared to meet the consequences.
</span>
