The correct answer would be option C, It is void.
An unscrupulous investor completes a contract with a buyer to sell a property the investor does not own. This sales contract for the transaction is Void.
Explanation:
When something is not legally bounded, or there is no legal restrictions to carry that thing, then this would be considered void. An invalid, null or cancelled thing is called as void.
So according to the question, when a dishonest, and unfair person or investor makes a deal with the buyer to sell a property which he does not own, and goes into a contract with him, then the contract is void, because the person himself does not own the property he is going to sell. There will be no legal binding of this contract.
Learn more about Void Contract at:
brainly.com/question/9582675
#LearnWithBrainly
I would say either C or D, hope I helped!
Answer:The Statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause.
Explanation:The Statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause. Regulation of foreign commerce is exclusively a federal power because of the need for the federal government to speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments. The existence of legitimate state interests underlying state legislation will not justify state regulation of foreign commerce. The state statute, in imposing requirements for a license costing $50 and for a clear marking of goods as being from a foreign country, clearly is an attempt by the state to restrict or even eliminate the flow of such goods in foreign commerce. Thus, the statute is unconstitutional.
The SI unit for mass is kilogram, kg.
