Selected transactions for Grouper’s Dog Care are as follows during the month of March. March 1 Paid monthly rent of $1,030.
3 Performed services for $120 on account.
5 Performed services for cash of $65.
8 Purchased equipment for $515. The company paid cash of $70 and the
balance was on account.
12 Received cash from customers billed on March 3.
14 Paid wages to employees of $450.
22 Paid utilities of $62.
24 Borrowed $1,290 from Grafton State Bank by signing a note.
27 Paid $190 to repair service for plumbing repairs.
28 Paid balance amount owed from equipment purchase on March 8.
30 Paid $1,550 for six months of insurance.
Journalize the transactions.

Abroker showed one of his own listings to a buyer he was representing. the buyer decided to make an offer on the property, which was accepted. at no point did the broker disclose his dual agency status. the broker may be:

Alandowner entered into a written agreement with a real estate broker whereby the broker would receive a commission of 10% of the sale price if he procured a "ready, willing, and able buyer" for the landowner's property and if the sale actually proceeded through closing. the broker found a buyer who agreed in writing to buy the property from the landowner for $100,000, the landowner's asking price. the buyer put up $6,000 as a down payment. the agreement between the landowner and the buyer contained a liquidated damages clause providing that, if the buyer defaulted by failing to tender the balance due of $94,000 at the closing date, damages would be 10% of the purchase price. the landowner included that clause because she was counting on using the proceeds of the sale for a business venture that would likely net her at least $10,000. the buyer became seriously ill and defaulted. when he recovered, he demanded that the landowner return his $6,000, and the landowner refused. the broker also demanded the $6,000 from the landowner and was refused. the broker and the buyer filed separate suits against the landowner, with the buyer pleading impossibility of performance. the two cases are consolidated into a single case. how should the court rule as to the disposition of the $6,000?

Ok, so, theoretical question: if i bought the mona lisa legally, would anyone be able to stop me from eating it? why or why not?