James Hardie pioneered the use of fiber cement siding in the mid 1980s and today, the material is as popular as it's ever been. Commonly referred to as Hardie board siding or Hardie plank siding, James Hardie fiber cement siding offers a unique combination of durability, versatility, and strength that makes it an attractive alternative to wood and imitation wood products such as vinyl. To learn more about James Hardie siding, including how much it costs, continue reading this buying guide. Reasons to Install James Hardie SidingFiber cement is composed of wood and cement fibers, sand, and water.
These materials are combined under high heat and pressure to form a solid, strong finished product. Hardie Plank lap siding, the flagship James Hardie siding product, has been installed on over 4 million homes.
When you consider the following attributes of James Hardie fiber cement, the product's popularity is easy to understand. Strength and Durability: Hardie Board siding is non-combustible, termite-proof, and resistant to rot, wind, rain, hail, snow, sun, warping, and shrinkage. And depending on where you live, James Hardie siding is imbued with specific attributes that allows it to perform best in your specific climate. The company, so sure of its products' performance, backs them with a 30-year limited warranty.
This hot app was released on 2016-10-29. If you have ever felt the need to have a fake ID then Fake Driving License Maker or Fake ID Generator is your wish fulfilled.How To Use:-Fake ID Card Generator or Fake ID Card Maker is a very Easy to use app. It is simply to learn how to use it. You can enjoy the most completed function of this app.Fake ID Card Maker or Fake ID Generator For Driving License is your answer to pranking your friends into believing that you already have a Driving License. Make a driver license online.
Beauty: James Hardie understands that while siding performance is critical, curb appeal shouldn't be ignored. That's why it offers four distinct product lineups: Hardie Plank, Hardie Shingle, Hardie Panel, and Artisan. Each type of James Hardie cement siding not only contains a natural-looking wood grain that is far more realistic than vinyl, but is available in patented that's warranted for 15 years. Green and sustainable: Hardie Board installation is a smart choice for your home and for the environment. Fiber cement is made entirely from natural and abundant ingredients and its durability means that it lasts longer than many other materials.
Savings: In terms of cost vs. Value, James Hardie fiber cement siding is exceptional. Over 15 years you can save up to $5,000 on repainting costs. Also, you could reduce your homeowner insurance premiums by an average of 14% when you install Hardie siding (compared to vinyl siding). Award-Winning: James Hardie has been recognized for its efforts to create better places to live by a number of leading publications, including MONEY Magazine, Builder Magazine, and HOME Magazine.James Hardie Siding Average CostsThe actual cost of James Hardie siding may vary based on the materials used, the local economy, the complexity of the installation, and other factors. James Hardie siding costs $8 to $12 per square foot. For a home with 1,500 exterior square feet, that's a total cost of approximately $15,000.
At this price, Hardie board is roughly 40 percent more expensive than vinyl siding. This is mostly due to the fact that fiber cement is heavy (around 5 times heavier than vinyl) and therefore more labor-intensive. The cost to remove and dispose of existing siding, if not included in the estimate, could cost an additional $1 to $3 per square foot.Use Our Free Service and Find Siding Companies Near You. Serving Top US Cities:. New York, New York. Los Angeles. Chicago.
Houston. Phoenix. Philadelphia. San Antonio.
Dallas. San Diego.
San Jose. Detroit. San Francisco. Jacksonville. Indianapolis. Austin.
Columbus. Fort Worth. Charlotte. Memphis. Baltimore.
El Paso. Boston. Milwaukee.
Denver. Seattle. Nashville.
Washington. Las Vegas.
Or, how about the courageous life of John Knox, who while enslaved in the bowels of a French galley ship cried out, “Give me Scotland, or I die”?”Christians should be familiar with historical documents like, the early ecumenical councils of and, and the preservation of theology and worship at the.
Portland. Louisville.
Oklahoma City. Tucson. Atlanta. Albuquerque. Fresno. Sacramento. Long Beach.
Mesa. Kansas City. Omaha. Cleveland. Virginia Beach. Miami. Oakland.
Raleigh. Tulsa. Minneapolis.
Colorado Springs. Honolulu. Arlington. Wichita.
St. Louis. Tampa. Santa Ana.
Anaheim. Cincinnati. Bakersfield. Aurora.
New Orleans. Pittsburgh. Riverside. Toledo.
Stockton. Corpus Christi. Lexington. St. Paul.
Anchorage. Newark. Buffalo. Plano. Henderson. Lincoln.
Fort Wayne. Glendale. Greensboro. Chandler. St.
Opt-in class action against Southern ResponseThe High Court in Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited 2018 NZHC 3288 has allowed the Rosses to bring a representative action against Southern Response.The Ross' claim challenges Southern Response's decision not to disclose to them a version of a document known as 'Detailed Repair/Rebuild Analysis' (DRA). The version disclosed to the Rosses was alleged to be 'abridged' in that it did not include some items included in the 'full' DRA. They say that this constituted a breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986, misrepresentation and breach of an implied duty of good faith on the part of Southern Response.Southern Response did not oppose the Court making a representative order. Instead the focus was on the terms of the representative order and whether the class members should be determined on an opt-in or an opt-out basis.Associate Judge Matthews decided that the class should be determined on an opt-in basis (claimants are part of the class only when they chose to opt-in). Despite opt-out orders being preferred in other jurisdictions, the Judge was not prepared to depart from earlier authority (French J in Houghton v Saunders) to the effect that there would need to be legislative change in New Zealand before an opt-out procedure is available.The class has been limited to people who owned properties that were damaged beyond economic repair, who did not receive the 'full' DRA and who entered into a settlement with Southern Response before 1 October 2014.
Southern Response managed repairs and rebuilds are excluded from the class.Leave has been granted for the Rosses to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The full decision can be found. Buddle Findlay acts for Southern Response in this proceeding. £14 billion class action poised to proceedIn a landmark decision, the UK Court of Appeal has recently overturned the Competition Appeal Tribunal's decision refusing certification in MasterCard's £14 billion collective action claim: Merricks v MasterCard Inc 2019 EWCA Civ 674.
The claim by Walter Merricks, a former Financial Services Ombudsman, seeks damages arising from Mastercard's alleged breach of competition law in respect of the level of fees charged to retailers for using its cards, which were allegedly anticompetitive and passed on to end consumers. The proposed class is immense: almost all consumers who had made purchases in the UK over a 16 year period.The claim was brought under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which introduced an opt-out class action regime into English law in 2015 for damages arising from breaches of UK or EU competition law.
The new regime permits a claimant representative to bring an opt-out collective action on behalf of a class of individuals. Importantly, claimants who fall within the defined class (and are domiciled within the UK) are automatically included in the claim unless they opt out. Jurisdiction to hear such cases was given exclusively to the UK's specialist Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
The first stage of any such claim is for the Tribunal to authorise the representative to bring the collective proceeding by making a collective proceedings order. The Tribunal must consider whether the claims raise the 'same, similar or related' issues of fact or law and are suitable to be brought in collective proceedings, and whether it is 'just and reasonable' for the representative to act on behalf of the class. James Hardie class action plaintiffs backed by overseas litigation funder ordered to pay security for costsIn White v James Hardie New Zealand 2019 NZHC 188, Whata J considered applications for security for costs of $350,000 and disclosure of the plaintiff’s funding arrangements. The substantive proceeding involved claims by the owners of 1,241 properties alleging the defendants, James Hardie New Zealand and associated companies, had sold defective cladding products over a period of 27 years.
The plaintiff homeowners were funded by Harbour Fund II, LP, Europe’s largest litigation funder.The High Court Rules 2016 require a defendant seeking security for costs to establish that the plaintiff is either resident or incorporated outside of New Zealand, or there is reason to believe the plaintiff will be unable to meet a costs award if it is unsuccessful in its claim. The plaintiff homeowners were not collectively impecunious, were covered by insurance, and were supported by Harbour. Despite not meeting the threshold tests, Whata J considered Harbour’s involvement as a litigation funder was enough to trigger a security order. The order was made in the exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction. Whata J held that if such an order was not made, Harbour may have been able to gain financially from the litigation whilst transferring all the risk of costs and potentially the burden of enforcement to James Hardie. The parties were invited to reach an agreement as to quantum. Whata J did not order disclosure of the plaintiff’s funding arrangements.See the judgment.
Parent company liability for negligence determined on ordinary principles – Zambian class action proceeds in EnglandThe UK Supreme Court has ruled that a class action by 1,826 Zambian citizens is to be heard in England: Vedanta Resources PLC v Lungowe 2019 UKSC 20.The claimants argued that their watercourses were contaminated by toxic discharges from a copper mine owned and operated by the defendant companies. The second defendant, Konkola Copper Mines PLC (KCM), was the Zambian-incorporated company with immediate ownership of the mine. The first defendant, Vendata Resources PLC (Vendata), was the London-based parent company of KCM.The plaintiffs’ ability to file proceedings against KCM in the English courts was dependent on their having a real issue to be tried against Vendata as the 'anchor defendant' domiciled in England. In delivering the judgment of the full court, Lord Briggs considered this threshold broadly reflected the test for summary judgment. Lord Briggs cited considerable prior authority which emphasised the importance of proportionality in litigating jurisdictional (and summary judgment) issues. The parties’ time, effort and costs were considered better spent arguing the substantive claim.Of central importance was whether Vendata exercised sufficient control over KCM’s mining operations so as to assume a duty of care to the plaintiffs.
Lord Briggs held that the existence of a duty through parent / subsidiary company relationships could be determined on ordinary negligence principles, without recognition of a novel category of duty. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the lower courts’ decisions in determining that the case could proceed in England on the basis that there was a real risk the plaintiffs would be unable to obtain substantial justice in the Zambian jurisdiction.The decision can be found. No sharp public/private divide in the FMA Act - more investor class actions in the offing?The Supreme Court has recently considered the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011 (Act) in a leave application decision.A bank had applied for leave to appeal on the issue of whether the FMA can disclose to third parties the bank’s documents that the FMA had obtained through the exercise of its statutory powers under s 25 of the Act. The application for leave was declined.Under the Act, disclosure is permitted in prescribed circumstances, including that it is for the purpose of, or in connection with the performance of any function, power or duty conferred or imposed on the FMA: s 59(3)(c).The Court of Appeal considered that the disclosure of information could be for purposes of considering whether a claim should be brought against a party or to enable the FMA to decide whether to exercise its step in powers. High Court considers Quistclose trusts and resulting trustsIn Li v 110 Formosa (NZ) Limited 2018 NZHC 3418, the Court confirms that a resulting trust arises when an investor invests into a company for the purpose of acquiring property, but ultimately the sale proceeds without the investor's involvement.Mr Wang and others became interested in purchasing the Formosa Golf Course.
Due to the need for additional finance, Mr Li became involved. A draft joint venture agreement was drafted and listed each party's funding and shareholding in the proposed holding company of the property (JEHL).
In addition, the parties entered into a cooperation agreement. Mr Li contributed $4.8m to JEHL in exchange for a proportion of shares. The sale did not proceed.Subsequently another attempt to purchase the property went ahead, this time with a different corporate vehicle and without Mr Li's involvement. Mr Li's investments in JEHL were not refunded.Mr Li's claim that the current owner of the property held a portion of it on constructive trust for him failed on the basis that the parties' expectations were to acquire an interest in the corporate vehicle purchasing the property, not an interest in the property itself.Mr Li was however successful on resulting trust principles. The Court outlined the parameters of a Quistclose trust, a species of resulting trusts: 'a Quistclose trust arises where a loan or advance of funds is made for a specific purpose and, upon the failure of that purpose, a resulting trust applies over the funds in favour the lender.'
In this case Mr Li deposited money but never received his commensurate shareholding in the corporate vehicle that acquired the Formosa property. The Court held that Mr Wang held the proportion of his shareholding which represented an original contribution of $4.8m on resulting trust for Mr Li.110 Formosa's director and majority shareholder, Gui Rong Wen, is no stranger to litigating property disputes ( Ngoi v Wen 2017 NZCA 519).The decision can be found. Final word on long-lasting family dispute over rural propertyAfter numerous court hearings spanning more than three years, the Court of Appeal has delivered what is likely to be the final word on a family dispute over a residential property in South Auckland: Almond v Read 2019 NZCA 26.The dispute concerned the legal ownership of the property and two homes constructed on it. Ms Almond, as sole registered proprietor, refused to acknowledge that the financial contributions made to the property by her mother and brothers gave them a proportionate beneficial interest.Ms Almond initially asserted in the High Court that she provided the purchase money for the property, and that any contributions by her relatives were either 'rent payments' or payments to recognise the care she provided her parents (who also lived in the property).
The High Court found Ms Almond's version of events to be implausible and held that an institutional constructive trust arose by operation of the principles of equity.On appeal, Ms Almond changed her story, and argued that her parents agreed to help her buy and develop the property with no expectation of a proprietary interest. The payments from her brothers were said to be made on her parents' behalf.The Court of Appeal again found this to be unconvincing and unsupported by evidence.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court confirmed the existence of an institutional constructive trust. The courts found that there was an express common intention shared by the parties that each would own an interest in the property in proportion to their contribution to it.
It was therefore unconscionable for Ms Almond to deny the respondents' interests.The decision can be found. IPENZ disciplinary hearing to proceed following High Court challenge by Attorney-GeneralIn Attorney-General v Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand Inc 2018 NZHC 3211, the High Court held that IPENZ's Investigation Committee erred in law in dismissing the disciplinary complaint laid by Mr Charles Stannard against Dr Alan Reay in relation to the collapse of the Canterbury Television Building during the 22 February 2011 earthquake.Dr Reay resigned as a Member of IPENZ in February 2014. In a March 2014 determination the Committee dismissed Mr Stannard’s complaint on the basis that following Dr Reay’s resignation from IPENZ there were no applicable grounds of discipline.The Attorney-General applied for judicial review of the Committee's decision and sought that it be set aside. Collins J held that the decision was amenable to judicial review, but that the scope of that review was principally to be governed by the terms of the contract of membership between Dr Reay and IPENZ.Collins J concluded that the Committee had erred in law in dismissing Mr Stannard’s complaint. With reference to statute based disciplinary regimes (in this case IPENZ’s jurisdiction was purely contractual) and overseas research on professional associations, Collins J reached a view that IPENZ’s disciplinary procedures had an important public trust element.
Consequently Collins J found that the term 'Member' in the relevant IPENZ Rules and Disciplinary Regulations includes a person who was a member of IPENZ at the time disciplinary proceedings were instituted, but who resigns from IPENZ before those disciplinary proceedings are completed.Collins J considered that the public interest overwhelmingly favoured the granting of relief as sought by the Attorney-General. The Committee's decision to dismiss Mr Stannard's complaint was declared unlawful and was set aside. The Court also held that IPENZ had jurisdiction to investigate, hear and determine Mr Stannard's complaint.The decision can be found. Dr Reay has appealed the decision. IPENZ (now Engineering NZ) has taken steps to reopen its investigation into Mr Stannard's complaint.
Buddle Findlay's Christchurch office acts for Dr Reay in this proceeding. Without notice disclosure duty breachedThe English case of PJSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky 2018 EWHC 3308 (Ch) considered allegations of non-disclosure and misrepresentation by the applicant bank on a without notice application for a freezing order. The bank had brought proceedings in the English courts seeking a worldwide freezing order against defendants residing in various countries for misappropriation and concealment of funds to the detriment of the bank and for their unjust enrichment. The freezing order was granted in favour of the bank; a decision that was then challenged by the defendants.The Court held that there were serious breaches by the bank of its duty in a without notice hearing to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts.
The Court found that the bank knew more than it disclosed in its evidence in the application and crafted the particulars of its claim to make the English defendants appear central to the scheme in order to establish jurisdiction in the English Courts when the English defendants were merely incidental players in the scheme. The Court set aside the freezing order.The judgment can be found. Legal professional negligence carries large penalty in CanadaThe Canadian Supreme Court in Salomon v Matte-Thompson 2019 SCC 14 has held a lawyer and his firm responsible for his clients' multi-million-dollar losses in a Ponzi scheme.The client sought advice from her lawyer, Mr Salomon, in her capacities as a beneficiary of her late husband's estate and director of a company, 166376 Canada Inc. Mr Salomon recommended that she consult Mr Papadopoulos, his personal friend and financial advisor.Mr Papadopoulos recommended that the client and the company invest in funds managed by his firm, Triglobal Capital Management Inc. Over the next four years, the client and the Company together invested more than $7.5m Canadian dollars in Triglobal funds. Mr Salomon continually endorsed Mr Papadopoulos and encouraged these investments, despite knowing that the funds were not suitable for the client's needs. There was evidence that Triglobal had given Mr Salomon commissions.Mr Papadopoulos then disappeared with the savings of around 100 investors, including that of the client and the Company.Mrs Matte-Thompson and the Company sued Messrs Papadopoulos and Salomon, and the lawyer's firm, for their losses.The Supreme Court found that Mr Salomon's actions had gone beyond a mere referral (which may not carry legal liability for the result).
Hardiplank Installation Nzx 2017
He had been a trusted advisor, and had failed to advise Mrs Matte-Thompson and the company as a competent, prudent and diligent lawyer would have done. He had also breached his duty of loyalty to them through his conflict of interest.These breaches were 'a true cause' of their losses. The Supreme Court found that had Mr Salomon properly advised the client and the company, they would never have invested with Triglobal.The decision can be found. Supreme Court rejects dishonest assistance claim against solicitorsThe Supreme Court has upheld the Court of Appeal's decision in granting a defendant's summary judgment application in favour of the law firm Wilson McKay: Sandman v McKay 2019 NZSC 41.This brings an end to a dispute concerning whether Mrs Elizabeth Sandman lacked the requisite testamentary capacity when she executed her second will in 2010, as Mrs Sandman's son, Mr Mark Sandman, had claimed. Mr Sandman further argued that Wilson McKay, the solicitors acting for Mrs Sandman, had dishonestly assisted in a breach of trust and/or fiduciary duty.The majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the Court of Appeal was correct to grant summary judgment in favour of Wilson McKay. The Court affirmed that the test for dishonesty is an objective one, judged against the background of what the defendant subjectively knew.
Hardiplank Installation Nzx Price
A defendant is dishonest if they have actual knowledge that the transaction is one in which the defendant could not honestly participate. If Wilson McKay knew Mrs Sandman lacked testamentary capacity or was wilfully blind to that risk, then this would have constituted dishonest assistance. The contemporaneous documentation showed that the solicitor did not doubt Mrs Sandman's capacity, nor was she wilfully blind to that possibility.With reference to a defendant's summary judgment application, the majority explained that summary judgment will be inappropriate when there are factual disputes and in particular, credibility issues that cannot be resolved on the basis of affidavit evidence.
Credibility was not an issue in this case.The decision can be found. Court of Appeal finds indemnity clause not a penaltyThe Court of Appeal recently revisited the doctrine on the prohibition of penalty clauses in 127 Hobson Street Ltd v Honey Bees Preschool Ltd 2019 NZCA 122. The alleged penalty clause in the commercial lease provided that if the landlord failed to install a second lift within a specific timeframe, the landlord would indemnify the tenant for all obligations under the lease, including the payment of rent and operating expenses, until expiration of the lease. Banks may use clear express contractual terms to exclude the Quincecare duty of careThe High Court of England and Wales in Federal Republic of Nigeria v JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA 2019 EWHC 347 (Comm) has recognised that banks may use express contractual terms to exclude the Quincecare duty.The Quincecare duty was formulated in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd 1992 4 All ER 363. This duty requires banks to refrain from making a payment when the bank is put on inquiry or has reasonable grounds to suspect the order is an attempt to misappropriate funds.
Once put on inquiry, a positive duty is imposed on the bank to make reasonable enquiries to investigate the fraud.In Federal Republic of Nigeria, the defendant bank argued that the Quincecare duty was excluded by the express terms of the agreement with the claimant. The Court agreed that in principle it may be possible for the Quincecare duty, as an implied term, to be excluded by an express contractual term. As the duty is imposed for good policy reasons, clear wording is required before a court will conclude that the Quincecare duty does not arise.In this case, the Court concluded that the defendant bank did not have clear wording in the agreement that excluded the Quincecare duty. There must be clear inconsistency between the terms of the agreement and the Quincecare duty for banks to exclude their duty of care. It is likely that any attempts to exclude this duty will require direct reference to the Quincecare duty.A copy of the judgment can be found.This update was edited by (partner), (senior associate), and Annie Cao (senior solicitor).
The Wellington stock ticker has come a long way since our in October last year.Over the past few months we've been working towards final installation - including the of the existing ticker, design and engineering of the new bracket system, configuration of the, design of electrical and data systems, scaffolding setup, testing and configuration of light levels and final creative design, plating of all brackets and fittings, and more.All the preparation has finally paid off as this week we've been on-site completing the installation of the new ticker. Check out the photos and time-lapse video below to see the progression. The ticker spans 64 metres wide and is 600mm tall, seeing an increase of 180mm over the previous ticker. The LED panels have a total of 7,000 nits of luminance, and feature a brightness control system which manages luminance during both day and night time with an ambient sensor as well as a timed control system.The updated panel is slimmer than the previous design and is mounted at a flat angle against the side of the building.
As LED technology has greatly improved, the downward angle of the previous ticker is no longer necessary.
Stylish & strong fibre cement claddingIf you’re looking for a versatile, low maintenance weatherboard with a natural and beautiful texture, look no further than HardiePlank® fibre cement cladding. It’s the facade of choice for builders and homeowners alike, protecting and beautifying millions of homes.Made from advanced, HardiePlank cladding is an engineered cellulose-fibre and cement composite that offers the ultimate in fire, moisture, rot and pest resistance. The unique properties of, providing ease of installation, design flexibility and enhanced durability.Made to lastWith advanced we’ve created the most durable HardiePlank cladding ever made.
Enhanced properties for unmatched durability. Our additives are chemically bonded to provide lasting resistance to rain, hail, wind, fire, rot and pests.Best of both strength and usabilityWe’ve found the perfect balance between high-quality Portland cement, sand and cellulose fibre to deliver lightweight, easy-to-cut cladding that installs firm and fast.Superior dimensional stabilityOur cladding is engineered at the microscopic level to create a. ApplicationUse HardiePlank cladding on your project for maximum versatility.
Install it horizontally, vertically or diagonally to create any design. Provide your building with a better fade-resistant, low maintenance finish. Choose from two textures for even greater design flexibility: a smooth finish for contemporary designs and natural cedar mill – with a pattern that rarely repeats – for a more classic look. Vertical installationFor a contemporary result, install HardiePlank vertically.
You can see an example of HardiePlank smooth vertically installed on in a mix of bold, bright colours in upright stripes to create a fresh, fun and contemporary aesthetic. Horizontal installationFor a more traditional look install HardiePlank horizontally. Use HardiePlank cladding in a smooth finish to make it more contemporary or in a.
Or mix vertical and horizontal installation, as done on. Mixed materialsIf you do not want to have a fully cladded house, HardiePlank also works great as or as. You can of course also mix HardiePlank with other James Hardie cladding products, such as done on, where both HardiePlank and HardiePanel® cladding was used tighter to create a contemporary look.
HardiePlank cladding: Refurbishment of traditional house in East Sussex, UK.When it came to refurbishing, Malcolm Bruce, senior project manager at Millwood Designer Homes, found the perfect product with HardiePlank in Soft Green with cedar texture. See our interview with Malcolm in the video above. HardiePlank cladding: New build New England-inspired properties in Reading, UK.is a large scale development in Reading, created by residential developer St Edward. Each collection at Green Park Village is finished with James Hardie Products, using HardiePlank weatherboard as exterior cladding in seven different colours, plus as a complement to the cladding. HardiePlank cladding: Mixed material new build home in South Oxfordshire, UKWhen Vision Development South Ltd looked to create in the desirable area of Woodcote, differentiation was key. An appropriate mix of high quality building materials and on trend finishing was essential to appeal to prospective homeowners. On the property exteriors, a red and grey brick facade is complemented with HardiePlank weatherboard in Iron Grey cedar texture, to make a dramatic design statement. HardiePlank cladding: Refurbishment of coastal house in South Hampton, UKis situated close to the coast, and when the owners looked to extend and improve their property they needed a material to stand up to the elements.
Andrews pitchfork mt4 expert. Feb 12, 2015. Andrews Pitchfork by IzaTrade: This semi-automatic expert advisor is a great assistant for traders who trade on the basis of drawing Andrews' Pitchfork. The EA is activated when a. Andrews Pitchfork indicator for MT4: This indicator is designed for automated drawing of Andrews Pitchfork. The Andrews Pitchfork tool is usually drawn according to three main prices of a.
HardiePlank weatherboard in Light Mist with a cedar structure was used as an accent across the facade.
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |