Answer:
Yeah, her argument will be good in Aceves. The further explanation is given below.
Explanation:
The promissory clause applies to just the requirement that although no attorney seems to be legal, a commitment is actionable. This happens whenever the Promiser already made that commitment to something like the Promisee who performs mostly on commitment.
- Aceves having operated throughout the specific situation mostly on the foundation of the Bank's commitment or withdrew its complaint. Therefore in this circumstance, the essential requirement that perhaps the promisee would have focused mostly on promiser is accomplished.
- Consecration of promise to pay estoppels is founded on either the ideals of equity as well as justice. The lender's action was unreasonable to Aceves and because of that, the premise would be effective on either the bank as to when the applicant was working on a pledge basis. Thus Aceves will be accurate in her argument.
Answer:
Option B is correct one.
<u>Practicality</u>
Explanation:
Natasha addressed practicality in her persuasive speech on question of policy. Because she is talking about on-ground realities.
I think it is (The Cash<span> Payments </span><span>Journal)
</span>
The SAFE act assures the payment of otherwise non-collectable court judgments against licensees who have committed fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or conversion of trust funds in a transaction.
<h3>What is the SAFE act?</h3>
This was the act in the United States that made it mandatory for houses to be registered and licensed.
The act is based on houses that are used as residences. The full meaning of the act is the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act.
The main purpose of the SAFE act is to try to ensure that consumers are protected and also help in the reduction of fraud. This would be done by setting a standard for licensing and the originators of mortgage loans.
Hence the correct answer to the question is the SAFE act.
Read more on court judgement here; brainly.com/question/14077067
#SPJ1