Answer:
Yes, the landowner should prevail and win the lawsuit.
Explanation:
The agreement between the landowner and his neighbor was recorded in the county's recording office, therefore this gave constructive notice about the agreement to any potential buyer of the property.
Since the original driveway owners agreed to mutually maintain the driveway, the burdens and benefits of the recorded agreement will apply to successive owners of the land.
Answer: True
Explanation: By conducting a small project as a proposal, a contractor is actually showing in a small scale that he is both capable, is the right man for the job (external project) and is able to ensure the external project is completed with its goals and objectives accomplished. It is these goals that drive the project, and all the planning and implementation . As such, the project has to be compelling and complete.
True gives the answer to the question.
Answer:
Should not be concerned
Explanation:
In the scenario being described, it can be said that the homeowner should not be concerned. That is because even though she did discriminate against the individual, Single-family homes rented without the use of a real estate agent or advertising are exempt from the federal Fair Housing Act. This holds true as long as the owner of the property does not own more than three homes at any given time. Therefore since there was no real estate agent, the man can't sue.
Answer:
15.8%.
Explanation:
Calculation for XYZ's cost of equity using the CAPM
Using this formula
Cost of equity = Rrf + βi[E(Rm) - Rrf]
Let plug in the formula
Cost of equity= 6% + 1.06×[15.25% - 6%]
Cost of equity= 6% + 1.06×9.25%
Cost of equity= 15.8%
Therefore the Cost of equity will be 15.8%
