Answer:
B) writ of persecution
Explanation:
According to my research on different legal requirements, I can say that based on the information provided within the question the only step that is not part of this process is writ of persecution. This is because a "writ of persecution" is a written order of the court to persecute a person, since there is no mention of such a thing in the question we can say that this is not part of the process.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
Answer:
$819.98
Explanation:
After making downpayment, the remaining amount is $145,000 - 15000 = $130,000
Using financial calculator:
PV = 130,000
n = 30 years = 360 months
i/r = 6.5%/year = 0.54% / month
FV = 0
PMT = ? (Monthly payment = ?)
--> Monthly payment = $819.98
The term <u>price taker</u> refers to a firm operating in a perfectly competitive market that must take the prevailing market price for its product. Read below about a perfectly competitive market.
<h3>What is a perfectly competitive market?</h3>
In economics, a perfect market is also known as an atomistic market. A effect competition is defined by several idealizing conditions, collectively called perfect competition, or atomistic competition.
Therefore, in such a market the price taker must take the prevailing market price its product.
learn more about price taker: brainly.com/question/15416827
#SPJ1
Answer:
No, Jim is not correct.
Explanation:
Betty will win this case.
Generally, the law encourages marriage as its policy. If there is any contract that prevent or restrict marriage in whatever way, such contract would be considered null and void because it is against the public policy.
Despite the above, contracts will be generally considered valid when they place reasonable restrictions on marriage. In this question, the restriction placed on Betty that she should get married until after her 22nd birthday is reasonable and has to be considered to be valid. Based on this, Betty has to be paid the $25,000 as laid down in the binding contract between the two parties.
Therefore, Jim is not correct.
