
8 November 2006 | 13 replies
Being new, I need all the info I can get on the subject, but its a daunting task trying to weed through truth, and whatever else is said in a post, on a forum.I mean no harm/offense/negative to anyone here, but shouldnt posts in a forum be treated as if we were speaking in everyday life?

28 December 2006 | 7 replies
of course that's up to the seller to require it.u could do deals where you put no money down, place a contingency in it that lets you off the hook if you are unable to find a buyer - no foul no harm, if the seller is okay with a 30day option.you might market it as being a better value for them because you'll focus all your efforts on their house whereas a realtor who's going to make money from them (rather than you making it from the buyer) and the realtor is focused on a 100 properties - not particularly yours.

1 February 2007 | 4 replies
and Im "FAIRLY" sure that she would not do anything to harm my wealth , there is possibilies correct?

7 February 2007 | 6 replies
Any harm in that?

15 March 2007 | 8 replies
There is never a harm in setting up a business except that is costs money and that can be done inexpensively especially when you do it yourself.

2 August 2007 | 22 replies
The prices may be quite a bit lower, so ask yourself why--one reason is that the dues, fees, fines, and assessments can/will be increased/added sometimes for reasons with which you totally disaagree, that might be harmful to your unit, and that you have no choice but to comply with.

27 December 2013 | 9 replies
I don't see how it would be retaliation, I am not trying to get even with the guy or anything, he hasn't harmed me other than just being a pest.

2 January 2014 | 11 replies
You got the signed lease,first, last and security..I see no harm in letting them move in 2 days early.

23 January 2014 | 11 replies
If it was a sex offense then having him go to properties solo again can be risky and possibly harm business.

15 January 2014 | 8 replies
You will hear some claim on BP, not Ken, that compliance is not required if the note predates the Act, not true in all respects.I can say that when a violation of law is discovered and the violator has then taken steps to comply after their discovery, there is an entirely different attitude taken by regulators, often to the point of no harm no foul.