Answer: The <em>sellers answers that there are no </em>major problems with the house. <u>One month after</u> the buyer moves in<u> ,a pipe bursts </u>and floods the basement. My responsibility is to give the buyer a <em>redhibitory action</em> and if is necessary a <em>plus compensation.</em>
Explanation:
We call sanitation for hidden defects to the <u>legal obligation</u> of the seller, given the existence of problems that prevent or <em>reduce the use </em>of the property , so that the buyer, if he had known, <em>would not have acquired it.</em>
We say that there is warranty for the property purchased if the vices <u>could not be perceived </u>in any way when acquiring the property.
In this case (up to 60 days) the contract is <em>terminated </em>and the property is restored, plus the corresponding <em>compensation </em>for damages that may have been caused. It is clear that the owner has no interest in preserving the property.
But also another alternative if the buyer wants to keep the property is to make a <em>discount</em> in the final price .
Answer:
thnku for free points..
if u need any help in any que thn u can tell.
Answer:
D). Increased sectional divisions between the north and south.
Explanation:
As per the question, one of the most significant impacts of rhetoric similar to here is the 'increased sectional divisions between the north and south' as it convinces people through using an effective and persuasive language. In the given excerpt, <u>the language adopted by the speaker invokes the audience to believe that 'it is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty.'</u>
The claim is logically supplemented by various rhetoric tools(in the language) that convinced the people that 'liberty is a reward to be earned, not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished... people too ignorant, degraded and vicious to be capable either of appreciating or of enjoying it.' Thus, the language like this contributed to encourage the widening of the rift between the north and south. Therefore, <u>option D</u> is the correct answer.
Answer:
hope it helps you.....❤❤
Explanation:
The major difference between these two systems is that in a Presidential system, the executive leader, the President, is directly voted upon by the people (Or via a body elected specifically for the purpose of electing the president, and no other purpose), and the executive leader of the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister, is elected from the legislative branch directly.
In the Presidential System, it is more difficult to enact legislation, especially in the event that the President has different beliefs than the legislative body. The President only responds to the people, the legislative branch can't really do anything to threaten the President. As a result, he can make it more difficult for the legislative body to do anything.
In the Parliamentary system, if the Parliament doesn't like the Prime Minister, they can cast a vote of no confidence and replace him. This tends to make the executive leader subservient to the Parliament.
Bottom line is, if you believe that government should have more checks and balances, then a Presidential system will give you that. If you believe that it should have the power to enact laws quickly, then you should go for a Parliamentary system.
Answer:
The conceptual problems are explicit and complete. The set of allowed movements or actions that can be performed during the solution of the problem is known as CPS (_Creative problem solving). ification of the initial and objective states, while judging does not benefit the problems are when the states, operators or both can be vaguely specified.