Ateam that has a good plan, but is also willing to adjust their master plan and adapt when conditions call for it demonstrates high an important variable in successful team processes. a) goal specificityb) goal congruencyc) conformityd) diversitye) reflexivity

Alandowner and his neighbor purchased adjoining undeveloped lots. after both built homes on their respective lots, the landowner suggested to the neighbor that a common driveway be built where the two lots joined. the neighbor agreed. the landowner and the neighbor split the cost of constructing the driveway and entered into a written agreement to equally share the costs of its upkeep and maintenance. the agreement was recorded in the county recorder's office. two years later, the neighbor built a new driveway located entirely on his lot. the common driveway, which the landowner continued to use but which the neighbor no longer used, began to deteriorate. the landowner asked the neighbor for money to maintain the common driveway, but the neighbor refused to contribute. three years later, the neighbor conveyed his lot to a friend. the friend entered into possession and used only the driveway built by the neighbor. by this time, the common driveway had deteriorated badly and contained numerous potholes. the landowner asked the friend to pay half of what it would take to repair the common driveway. the friend refused. the landowner repaired the driveway and sued the friend for 50% of the cost of repairs. will the landowner prevail?

Read the following scenario and answer the question in 5-10 sentences. you are the owner of a small business that is a defendant in a lawsuit in federal court. you received bad news from your lawyer that the judge did not allow certain documents to be admitted as evidence in court and that the jury reached a $50,000 verdict in favor of the plaintiff. your lawyer tells you that it is within your legal right to hire him to file an appeal with the united states court of appeals. if the appellate court rules in your favor, you may be able to avoid paying part or all of the $50,000. evaluate your lawyer’s suggestion about appealing the decision.

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.