Answer:
True
Explanation:
Credit repair businesses are governed by federal law and must make certain disclosures. The Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) is a federal statute that governs credit repair businesses. It establishes certain requirements and provisions that credit repair companies must follow when providing services to clients. The legislation compels these organizations to give customers with specific disclosures, such as information about their services, fees, and consumer rights. It also forbids some misleading activities and gives consumers certain rights and remedies in the event of a breach. As a result, credit repair companies MUST follow these federal rules and disclosure standards.
______ ______ may increase prejudice through overt policies like school segregation or media stereotypes.
The answer to fill in the blank is "Structural discrimination". According to the concept of structural discrimination, prejudice is perpetuated through overt policies such as school segregation or media stereotypes.
It's a form of institutional bias that arises from the use of unjust laws, practices, and norms that undermine marginalized people's social, political, and economic rights.
Structural discrimination refers to situations where policies and structures promote systematic and widespread inequalities. For instance, the provision of poor-quality health services in minority communities, where they are more likely to develop illnesses due to environmental factors like lack of access to clean water and proper sanitation, is an example of structural discrimination.
In summary, structural discrimination may increase prejudice through overt policies like school segregation or media stereotypes.
Learn more about media stereotypes: https://brainly.com/question/31007963
#SPJ11
In a federally-related lending transaction, it is permissible for the borrower to engage the appraiser.
a. True
b. False
The answer to this question is False. The borrower cannot engage the appraiser in a federally-related lending transaction. The appraiser is required to be unbiased and impartial.
Federally-related lending transactions are mortgage-related transactions that involve federal financial institutions or other governmental entities. A federally related mortgage lending transaction is a mortgage loan purchase by federal institutions and other governmental entities, mortgage loans insured by the federal government, and mortgage loans that are eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
An appraiser is an individual who is qualified to evaluate the value, worth, and quality of a property. A licensed appraiser is a specialist who examines real estate properties, assesses the market value of those properties, and writes appraisal reports.
A borrower may not select an appraiser for a federally-related lending transaction. The appraiser must be chosen by the lender or a third-party appraisal management company that the lender hires. The appraiser's primary responsibility is to provide a neutral, unbiased valuation of the property for the benefit of the lender.
To know more about loans visit: brainly.com/question/20688650
#SPJ11
attorney-client privilege means that a defense attorney is not permitted to violate a client's confidentiality for any reason. group of answer choices a. true
b. false
True. The attorney-client privilege means that a defense attorney is not permitted to violate a client's confidentiality for any reason.
Attorney-client privilege is a legal concept that prevents lawyers from disclosing confidential information about their clients without their consent. Clients must be able to speak candidly with their lawyers about their legal issues to get the best possible representation and advice from their lawyers, which is why the law imposes this responsibility on attorneys.
The doctrine of attorney-client privilege applies to any confidential communication between a lawyer and his or her client that is made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice or services. It is important to note that not all communications between a client and a lawyer are privileged. Communications must be made in confidence for the purposes of obtaining or providing legal advice or services to be covered by the privilege.
Learn more about attorney-client privilege: https://brainly.com/question/31847862
#SPJ11
A homeowner resides downhill from a metal fabrication facility. She has sued both the ownerof the facility and the supplier of a solvent usedat the facility. She contends that contaminants, consisting mostly of the solvent, were released into the ground at the facility and have migrated and continue to migrate to her property, contaminating the soil, the groundwater, and her well. She alleges various acts of negligence on the part of the facility owner in causing the release of the contaminants into the ground. She also alleges that employees of the solvent supplier were negligent in frequently spilling some of the solvent onto the ground while filling a rooftop tank at the facility.
The solvent supplier has moved for summary judgment, arguing that if there was any contamination, the facility owner and the supplier independently contributed indeterminate amounts to the contamination and that therefore the homeowner cannot show how much damage each has inflicted on her.
There is no evidence that the facility owner and the solvent supplier acted in concert.
Should the court grant the summary judgment motion?
Question ID#: 190314
Rule: when multiple defendants caused a single harm, both or liable for the entire amount of damages.
Here, the court should not grant the summary judgment motion. The plaintiff has sued both the facility owner and the supplier of the solvent used at the facility.
She contends that contaminants, consisting mostly of the solvent, were released into the ground at the facility and have migrated and continue to migrate to her property, contaminating the soil, the groundwater, and her well. She alleges various acts of negligence on the part of the facility owner in causing the release of the contaminants into the ground. She also alleges that employees of the solvent supplier were negligent in frequently spilling some of the solvent onto the ground while filling a rooftop tank at the facility. The solvent supplier has moved for summary judgment, arguing that if there was any contamination, the facility owner and the supplier independently contributed indeterminate amounts to the contamination and that therefore the homeowner cannot show how much damage each has inflicted on her.
The summary judgment motion should not be granted because when multiple defendants caused a single harm, both or liable for the entire amount of damages. In other words, each defendant is jointly and severally liable for the entire harm suffered by the plaintiff, and either defendant can be held liable for the entire amount of damages. Therefore, the court should not grant the summary judgment motion.
Learn more about summary judgment motion: https://brainly.com/question/26330155
#SPJ11
when a dispute arises between different countries, the preferred method of resolution is to litigate the case through the foreign court system because it is less expensive and more private to do so. True or False
Litigation in a foreign court system is often time-consuming and expensive. It's also worth noting that in certain circumstances, the laws of a foreign nation may not provide appropriate protection. As a result, countries have established alternate ways of resolving disputes that avoid the need for foreign litigation. Hence, the statement is false.
When a dispute arises between different countries, litigating the case through the foreign court system is not the preferred method of resolution due to several reasons. First, it is false that litigating the case through foreign courts is less expensive. International litigation can be costly due to legal fees, travel expenses, and the need for expert witnesses. Additionally, navigating the foreign legal system may require engaging local counsel, which adds to the overall expense.
Second, it is also false that litigating through foreign courts is more private. International litigation often involves public proceedings and court records, which may be accessible to the public. This can result in a lack of privacy and confidentiality.
Instead of litigation, countries typically prefer alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or diplomatic channels. These methods offer more flexibility, confidentiality, and the potential for a mutually satisfactory resolution without the need for costly and time-consuming court proceedings.
To know more about Litigation visit: brainly.com/question/28542877
#SPJ11
a defendant is on trial for the crime of menacing due to allegedly making threatening phone calls to a woman living in his apartment building. the prosecution called a female witness who lived in the defendant's prior apartment building to testify that she also received a number of unidentified but identical threatening phone calls while the defendant lived in her building. the defense objected to the testimony on the ground of relevance. the prosecution responded by explaining that it plans to introduce further evidence establishing that the calls received by this witness were made by the defendant. is the witness's testimony admissible?
In this case, the court may deem the witness's testimony admissible. The testimony of the female witness who lived in the defendant's prior apartment building could be relevant to the case of menacing.
To determine the admissibility of evidence, courts typically evaluate its relevance and probative value. The witness's testimony becomes relevant if it tends to establish a material fact, such as the defendant's pattern of making threatening phone calls. The prosecution's plan to introduce additional evidence linking the defendant to the calls further strengthens the relevance and probative value of the witness's testimony.
The court will assess the overall circumstances, including the credibility and consistency of the witness's testimony, the strength of the prosecution's evidence connecting the defendant to the calls, and the potential for prejudice or undue influence. If the court finds the evidence relevant and its probative value outweighs any potential prejudice, it is likely to admit the witness's testimony.
To know more about witness's testimony
brainly.com/question/14567392
#SPJ11
as chief justice, ___________ led the supreme court into a new era of prominence and power.
As Chief Justice, John Marshall led the Supreme Court into a new era of prominence and power.
Marshall served as the fourth Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835 and played a significant role in shaping the Court's authority and influence. Through landmark cases such as Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall established the principle of judicial review and asserted the Court's power to interpret the Constitution.
His decisions solidified the Court's role as the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation and greatly enhanced its stature as a co-equal branch of government.
Learn more about Prominence
https://brainly.com/question/16489495
#SPJ11
For tort of Trespass one must prove intent to cause unlawful
harm. The same hurdle must be passed to establish Tort of
Negligence.
Group of answer choices
True
False
For tort of Trespass one must prove intent to cause unlawful harm. The same hurdle must be passed to establish Tort of Negligence. the statement that one must prove intent to cause unlawful harm to establish the tort of negligence is false.
To establish the tort of trespass, one does not need to prove intent to cause unlawful harm. Intent to cause harm is not an essential element of trespass. Trespass generally refers to the unauthorized entry onto another person's property or interference with their possession or use of the property.
Intent to cause harm is more relevant in intentional torts such as assault or battery. In the case of negligence, the tortfeasor's intent is not a requirement. Negligence focuses on a failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm or injury to another person.
Learn more about tort of Trespass
https://brainly.com/question/34630835
#SPJ11
the driver of an automobile was tried and convicted of manslaughter in the death of a cyclist. subsequently, family members of the cyclist initiated a wrongful death action against the driver. in this civil action, the plaintiffs seek to introduce testimony given by a witness at the criminal trial that the witness had observed the driver's reckless speeding less than a minute before the accident with the cyclist. the witness died of natural causes before the wrongful death action began. the driver objected, noting that, although the witness was cross-examined at the criminal trial, the driver's attorney had not, for tactical reasons, made a serious effort to undermine the witness's credibility despite the availability of substantial impeachment information. should the witness's testimony from the manslaughter case be admitted?
The admissibility of the witness's testimony from the manslaughter case in the wrongful death action would depend on the applicable laws and rules of evidence in the jurisdiction where the case is being heard.
Generally, in a civil action like a wrongful death lawsuit, the rules of evidence may differ from those in a criminal trial.
In this situation, the driver is objecting to the admission of the witness's testimony, arguing that their attorney did not make a serious effort to undermine the witness's credibility during the criminal trial. This could be a valid argument for the driver's attorney to make, as the witness's credibility is an important factor in determining the weight and reliability of their testimony.
However, the final decision on whether to admit the witness's testimony would be up to the judge presiding over the wrongful death action. The judge would consider the arguments of both parties, the relevant rules of evidence, and any applicable case law to determine the admissibility of the testimony. Factors such as the importance of the testimony, the availability of impeachment evidence, and the overall fairness of admitting the testimony may also be considered.
To know more about witness's testimony
brainly.com/question/14567392
#SPJ11
Questions 9-10 are based on the following fact situation. Until 1954, the state of New Atlantic required segregation in all public and private schools, but all public schools are now desegregated. Other state laws, enacted before 1954 and continuing to the present, provide for free distribution of the same textbooks on secular subjects to students in all public and private schools. In addition, the state accredits schools and certifies teachers. Little White School, a private school that offers elementary and secondary education in the state, denies admission to all non-Caucasians. Stone School is a private school that offers religious instruction. _____________________________________________________________ Which of the following is the strongest argument against the constitutionality of free distribution of textbooks to the students at the Little White School?
A. No legitimate educational function is served by the free distribution of textbooks.
B. The state may not in any way aid private schools.
C. The Constitution forbids private bias of any kind.
D. Segregation is furthered by the distribution of textbooks to these students.
The answer to the question that asks which of the following is the strongest argument against the constitutionality of free distribution of textbooks to the students at the Little White School is D, Segregation is furthered by the distribution of textbooks to these students
One reason segregation persisted in the United States was that African Americans were often denied access to the same educational opportunities as white people, such as public schools and access to the same textbooks as white students. As a result, if segregation was going to be challenged, the desegregation of educational institutions would be required. In addition, it was discovered that the segregation of African Americans harmed their educational attainment and future prospects.
Therefore, D is the strongest argument against the constitutionality of free distribution of textbooks to the students at the Little White School since segregation is furthered by the distribution of textbooks to these students.
Learn more about Segregation: https://brainly.com/question/14330237
#SPJ11
