Answer:
they can get anberst or get sad or may happy
Explanation:
b/c they think that they always need to proof in studies alyes thin they can do more
And<span> these payments represent a growing share of U.S. federal outlays. In general, most of general spending (welfare or infrastructures) that the federal government took is a form of transferm payments because it transfer the income from people with salaries for the benefit of all members of society who needed the federal aid.</span>
Civil, no laws where broken and it isn't a matter of someones rights being broken and this didn't happen on a military base so therefore it is a civil case between two parties.
Answer:
No, it violates antitrust laws
Explanation:
Antitrust law as applicable to Real Estate, is a law that is made to protect stakeholders: buyers, sellers or other parties involved in a potential or actual contract relationship from practices that may be considered as void such as price fixing (often times lowering of prices), rigging of bids, allocation of customers or markets, running of multiple listing services individually or collectively, and group boycotts.
Hence, in this case, this is a case of price-fixing where by two participants on the same side, have agreed to fix a price, in which the 5% may have imposed high prices on consumers. Thus, it is considered illegal, and violates antitrust law.
I'll answer this base on a general point of view. Socioeconomic adversity is synonymous with inequality therefore in all underdeveloped countries is experienced by the lack of resources to access different services such as health, education etc which translates into a reduction in the quality of life which can mean a lower expectation of life in some regions.
