David: I wrote a weblog article for BiggerPockets about how I analyzed and bought a deal in 5 minutes. We had been at a real property convention. We have been studying how you discover off-market deals. This couple that was there, went and left, безопасно брать микрозайма and acquired on a telephone name. The spouse got here again crying and she said, ‘The funding I had for this deal just fell out. I was just about to shut on it. This was such a very good deal.’ She’s heartbroken.

Englemayer responds: “There are so many jokes about Jewish attitudes in direction of money – how do you get 50 Jews right into a VW Beetle? Toss in a penny – and too many Jewish so-referred to as comedians who tell them. Individuals say we shouldn’t be so thin-skinned as to complain about such things. Absolutely unfaithful. The success of such jokes all the time depends on the perception of the listener that there’s a kernel of fact in them. We have to complain and protest at each opportunity.

This episode is a comedian performing out of the biblical scene (Genesis 27) by which Jacob wears goatskins so that his blind father Isaac will feel him, assume he is his elder son, the bushy Esau, and be deceived into giving him Esau’s blessing. The point of this scene begins to emerge when we recall the critical scene in which Shylock tells Antonio that by usury he’s following Jacob’s example and Antonio’s reply that Jacob, not like Shylock, did nothing unjust and was in any case guided by God (I.iii.66-90). The scene between Launcelot and his father functions as Shakespeare’s invitation to us to think about Antonio’s rosy, idealizing image of Jacob as not fairly what Scripture supposed, indeed as a deep misunderstanding of the religious tradition.

Historical backgroundThe Chettiars originated from an space generally known as Chettinad in Tamil Nadu, India’s southernmost state.4 Though popularly known as Chettys or Chettiars, this group is more formally referred to because the Nattukottai Chettiars or Nagarathars.5 Nattukottai means “people with palatial houses within the countryside” whereas Nagarathars check with “city dwellers, traders and temple-primarily based people” in Tamil.6

There could be no estoppel where the truth of the matter is understood to both parties, and their Lordships hold, in accordance with English authorities, that a false representation, made to a person who knows it to be false, just isn’t such a fraud as to remove the privilege of infancy: Nelson v. Stocker. 1 De G. & J. 458. The identical precept is recognised in the explanation to Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, by which it is said that a fraud or misrepresentation which didn’t cause the consent to a contract of the occasion on whom such fraud was practiced, or to whom such misrepresentation was made, does not render a contract voidable.

Bạn cũng có thể thích...

Trả lời

Email của bạn sẽ không được hiển thị công khai.