The type of listing agreement that provides for payment of a commission to the broker even though the owner makes the sale without the broker's aid is called an exclusive right to sell a listing.
Listing of exclusive distribution rights
Listing of exclusive distribution rights is the most commonly used contract. In this type of listing agreement, an agent is appointed as the sole agent of the seller and has exclusive authority to represent the property.
A California Realtor Listing Agreement is an agreement that authorizes a broker to sell an owner's property on their behalf. The contract allows them to list the property, but in most cases gives them exclusive rights to the property transaction and potentially earnable commissions.
Learn more about listing agreement here: brainly.com/question/8186569
#SPJ4
Answer: above-average profits
Explanation: In the given case, while making the change in the operations the managements anticipated an increase in profit by 125 max. These types of anticipations are done by the managers on the basis of past records or the current existing trends.
Usually under such situations the management tries to take average of the anticipated figures so that expectations of take holders would not get high too much.
Hence the increase of 19% depicts that the profit increased by more than the average level as anticipated by the managers.
Complete Question
The complete question is shown on the first uploaded image
Answer:
The correct option for first question is A
The correct option for second question is B
Explanation:
The correct option is A because the value of a firm depends on its ability to generate cash flow that is available to distribute to the company's investors, including creditors and stockholders.
For the second part the answer is B
This because a financial asset will have value only if it can generate future positive cash flows.
Also when valuating the cost at which the asset is acquired is not relevant
Answer:
The answer is: C) lose because he will not be able to prove reliance on the misrepresentation.
Explanation:
In order for Larson to be able to rescind the contract, he would have to prove that he had reasonable reliance that Robert Redford owned that specific car. Reasonable reliance refers to a person believing something to be a fact, which any other person could reasonably believe in as well.
But exactly how could he prove that someone else might also believe that the car was previously owned by Robert Redford? I find it very doubtful that he can prove that.
Well yes but not just that when u slow down u mite get a ticket so yea.
