|
Tunicate posted:A question from reddit, That's how I got free Lego when they shipped me a master case instead of the single set.
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 12:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
toplitzin posted:That's how I got free Lego when they shipped me a master case instead of the single set. Dang save some pussy for the rest of us
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 12:51
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Dang save some pussy for the rest of us Sorry I ordered one pussy but got shipped all of it, sucks to be everyone else.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 13:20
|
|
|
Where the fraud happens is when you send 1 back for a refund and keep the other 98.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 13:46
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Dang save some pussy for the rest of us The pussy store called, they’re running out of you
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:A question from reddit, UCC 2-601 gives you the right to accept the lot or deny the lot, or accept partial (as long as commercial reasonable efforts are made to not lessen the value of the non accepted lot) it doesn't mean you get to keep the poo poo for free. you still have to pay. you just dont have to accept and cant be forced to accept non conforming goods. He's just not obligated to pay to send it back. if they send him prepaid return packaging and he didnt send it that would be conversion/theft. companies let you keep poo poo because it costs more to get items back sometimes then then make on selling them and other poo poo, its not because legally you get to keep whatever shows up at your doorstep
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Dang save some pussy for the rest of us Murder is illegal itt
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 20:26
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:UCC 2-601 gives you the right to accept the lot or deny the lot, or accept partial (as long as commercial reasonable efforts are made to not lessen the value of the non accepted lot) He already paid for the lot in advance. Then the company made a delivery in fulfilment of their deal, and it was nonconforming, but he decided to accept it in full anyway. From what i understand, the buyer even can choose to accept nonconforming lots which have only a few items in common, or no items in common, with the invoice at all (which happens fairly frequently at fast food establishments across the nation). I could be misunderstanding, though. If the drivethru gives you a large soda instead of a medium are you actually legally on the hook to pay for the extra mountain dew? Does the UCC have options for a seller's recourse when a buyer accepts a delivery, and the seller has second thoughts about it?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 09:43
|
|
|
I once ordered a watch and they delivered two by mistake. I didn’t do anything with the second and after 3 weeks they emailed and asked for it back. They sent a box and I sent it back and it was done, but I did keep the extra free hat that came with it. Am I going to jail?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
Dumb question, perhaps - but how do they get the pool of people for Jury Duty? I had thought it was voter registration (could be wrong!). I have been registered to vote for *28 years* and I have never once gotten a summons. I have friends who seem to get a letter every 3-4 years. I am weirdly a little jealous.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
The Pirate Captain posted:I once ordered a watch and they delivered two by mistake. I didn’t do anything with the second and after 3 weeks they emailed and asked for it back. They sent a box and I sent it back and it was done, but I did keep the extra free hat that came with it. Am I going to jail? Yes, but it's not related to the order or the hat
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
Arkhamina posted:Dumb question, perhaps - but how do they get the pool of people for Jury Duty? I had thought it was voter registration (could be wrong!). I have been registered to vote for *28 years* and I have never once gotten a summons. I have friends who seem to get a letter every 3-4 years. It's usually voter registration, but some places will also use DMV records, property records... basically any big lists of people. I never got summoned living in the same apartment for like 14 years, but then bought a condo and got paperwork for both the county and federal. (And then sat on a federal trial for 2 months.)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:He already paid for the lot in advance. Then the company made a delivery in fulfilment of their deal, and it was nonconforming, but he decided to accept it in full anyway. you could be, if they wanted to go after you for it. but they don't want to. they just eat it at a loss. the point of the UCC and similar contract laws is that people get the benefit of the bargain - you get what you pay for, and you get paid for what you deliver. Your friend paid in advance for one unit. He got two units. He does not get the second unit for free unless the seller decides not to pursue getting the unit back. The seller has the right to demand the return of the property, the seller has to pay the cost associated with returning the product (or risk forfeiting the product), and if your friend refused/ignored them they could go after him for it. (subject to a poo poo load of caveats) There are various remedies under the UCC and contract law for all sorts of poo poo. the main goal is that everyone receives the benefit of the bargain
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
Is there a difference between a single package with 2 PS5s and two separate packages with a single PS5? When does it change from a single non-conforming lot to two different lots. If you want to do business with the company in the future you'll want to cooperate, but at some point getting random packages becomes unordered merchandise right?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:Is there a difference between a single package with 2 PS5s and two separate packages with a single PS5? When does it change from a single non-conforming lot to two different lots. If you want to do business with the company in the future you'll want to cooperate, but at some point getting random packages becomes unordered merchandise right? With the assumption that removing a single grain does not cause a heap to become a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times that only one grain remains: is it still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 20:24
|
|
|
When you attempt to remove a grain that has already been removed, this potentially corrupts the memory manager that handles the heap, meaning that the future behavior is undefined. While a heap technically remains, attempting to put anything else on it may cause unexpected failures. Please do not attempt to remove sand that is no longer present.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 23:47
|
|
|
I was hoping for a questions about law thread since this one is more focused on questions of... legality or legal service? but I'm trying to put together information on states with filial responsibility laws for the elder care thread in the BFC forum. And it's hard to find answers through the major search engines. Ads, SEO from firms for elder law and the like. Wikipedia has a list of states under the 'Filial responsibility laws' but no references to information about the laws where I could even confirm they exist. I'm looking a reputable site or sites to reference that these laws exist and where one could read about them, certainly not interpret what they say.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 20:05
|
|
|
abravemoose posted:I was hoping for a questions about law thread since this one is more focused on questions of... legality or legal service? but I'm trying to put together information on states with filial responsibility laws for the elder care thread in the BFC forum. And it's hard to find answers through the major search engines. Ads, SEO from firms for elder law and the like. I’d probably start by using Google Scholar to look for an article or note that has done a 50 state survey on the topic.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 22:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I’d probably start by using Google Scholar to look for an article or note that has done a 50 state survey on the topic. Thanks, I was able to find something that at least lists statutes in each state https://jcjl.pubpub.org/pub/v2-i1-kethineni-rajendran-falial-responsibility#xq9r6wd9a3.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
abravemoose posted:Thanks, I was able to find something that at least lists statutes in each state https://jcjl.pubpub.org/pub/v2-i1-kethineni-rajendran-falial-responsibility#xq9r6wd9a3. You could also probably then go state by state and see if you can find an attorney blog article on each statute that might give a more in-depth description of its operation. To increase SEO and visibility, attorneys will often sit down and write either website articles which are pretty light, or state attorney education articles which are very dense on subjects. Something like eldercare is definitely going to be done by somebody, although some of the more dense results like continuing legal education articles. Maybe beyond the layperson's understanding
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 13:01
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Maybe beyond the layperson's understanding ...he said, with a superior mien
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 13:10
|
|
|
This high falutin tribalism in lawyerly society must cease! I am a free man of the land and my subjective understanding of the letter of the law is all that applies to me, the person a flippy floopy floop What do you mean you have "a tazer"
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 13:12
|
|
|
The Power of P. Barnes compels you!!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 14:25
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:This high falutin tribalism in lawyerly society must cease! That maybe a tazer and it not maybe a taser.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 08:16
|
|
|
Do any of the lawyers ITT have experience with the SF-86? Do PhD advisors typically count as a "Foreign Contact"?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
I would count that as a foreign contact, absolutely. A PhD advisor is someone you worked with for years in a close, professional setting on a topic important to your life. The types of foreign contacts you can leave off are stuff like a neighbor you occasionally chatted with, a person you worked with professionally for a while on a job and then didn't contact after the project was done or the like.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 22:21
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Whiskey smash in the rain time   Absolutely nothing has happened with the lawsuit or the bankruptcy. Supposedly the insurors are going to talk to us about a mediated "global settlement" but I'll believe it when I see it. Sooner or later the next thing that'll happen is I'll get one of these calls: 1. The appeal has been denied, proceed to #4. 2. The appeal has been approved and I guess we get to have another trial? 3. Some sort of mediation is actually going to happen. 4. Some stuff has been sold and is either going into the kitty or maybe a disbursement of some sort will actually happen? Which I guess could happen before 1 or 2 unless they were to post bond?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 01:07
|
|
|
At a haunted house, it seems acceptable to dress up like Leatherface and chase people around with a chainsaw (I assume the blade is removed). If I did the same thing some summer afternoon downtown, I expect I'd get arrested. Legally, what is the difference?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:At a haunted house, it seems acceptable to dress up like Leatherface and chase people around with a chainsaw (I assume the blade is removed). If I did the same thing some summer afternoon downtown, I expect I'd get arrested. Legally, what is the difference? Consent. Really loving hope you know what consent means, or you're going to learn whether you want to or not
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
And to a related and lesser extent, forseeability
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Consent. Is it consent if you don't know what you are consenting to? What got me thinking about it was a horror movie I watched where college kids went into a haunted house and started getting killed off. I thought the twist was going to be that they didn't actually kill anybody and it was all part of the show (like the movie April Fool's Day). In this case, no, I don't know where you legally draw the line on consent and that is why I am asking. Is it somewhere between a guy in a clown mask saying "boo" and believing that you are in actual danger of death or severe bodily harm? That is why I used the real world example of getting chased by a chainsaw at a haunted house. Most people have no idea that you can remove the blade from a chainsaw, so I think that it is reasonable for them to think they may be in actual danger even though they are at a haunted house.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 02:39
|
|
|
Relevant https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/30/an-extreme-haunted-house-requires-page-waiver-critics-say-its-torture-chamber/
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 02:54
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Is it consent if you don't know what you are consenting to? What got me thinking about it was a horror movie I watched where college kids went into a haunted house and started getting killed off. I thought the twist was going to be that they didn't actually kill anybody and it was all part of the show (like the movie April Fool's Day). In this case, no, I don't know where you legally draw the line on consent and that is why I am asking. Is it somewhere between a guy in a clown mask saying "boo" and believing that you are in actual danger of death or severe bodily harm? That is why I used the real world example of getting chased by a chainsaw at a haunted house. Most people have no idea that you can remove the blade from a chainsaw, so I think that it is reasonable for them to think they may be in actual danger even though they are at a haunted house. You can consent to things without knowing all the details. A suit would be judged on a reasonable factors based on the totality of the situation. You typically consent to a certain type of experience, ie, jump frights, flashing lights and eerie music, etc., but no physical contact. Being afraid is an expected result, look up assumption of risk and similar subjects if you want to know more. But if they hit you or something violent like that, or prevented you from leaving, that’s be a violation of consent etc
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 03:10
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Relevant I thought this type of thing was only in horror movies, but this guy is doing it for real and covering his rear end legally. I guess you can consent to almost anything with a two hour video presentation and a 40 page waiver.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 03:15
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:I thought this type of thing was only in horror movies, but this guy is doing it for real and covering his rear end legally. I guess you can consent to almost anything with a two hour video presentation and a 40 page waiver. The Something Awful Forums > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: I guess you can consent to almost anything with a two hour video presentation and a 40 page waiver.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 03:39
|
|
|
I was reading this New Yorker article on the Lucy Letby case, which I was not super familiar with before: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it In it, they discuss how articles had been taken down in the UK because of a contempt of court law, since they disagreed with the official verdict in the case. I read a bit about this law, but have had trouble figuring out how it actually tends to work. As someone from the US, this law seems sort of insane. Can someone more knowledgeable tell me about how this law tends to work/if it seems useful on the whole? I’m curious about it since it just seems so different from the US approach (not that this necessarily makes it bad) and allowing others to comment and publicize wrong decisions seems like a common and important way to right wrongs in the Justice system.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 09:23
|
|
|
Here's the rules, they're online: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Reporting-Restrictions-in-the-Criminal-Courts-September-2022.pdf. The core principle is 'juries tend to read newspapers and have friends'. You simply cannot have a fair trial if the jury can see every decision the judge makes about the conduct of the trial being questioned by an unqualified and uninformed peanut gallery. We also just do not want anything like the partisan shitshow that was the environment surrounding the say, the Rittenhouse trial anywhere near us. In the case of Letby, while there's lots of interesting stuff about systemic failures in the hospital system and prosecution to learn from, something the Yorker really buries in that piece is the I AM EVIL I KILLED THEM confession note they found in her house which kinda seals the deal on whether she did it. e: I'll also add, the rule not that you can't question a judgement. A few people in the UK have done this in national media (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12552809/peter-hitchens-lucy-letby-not-guilty.html). What you can't do is comment on the rightness of a judges decisions in how they want to run the trial. The main issue in this instance was anonymity for some of the witnesses called, but the proper place to debate that is in the courts and our media actually respect that. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 10:12 on May 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 09:52
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Here's the rules, they're online: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Reporting-Restrictions-in-the-Criminal-Courts-September-2022.pdf. The core principle is 'juries tend to read newspapers and have friends'. You simply cannot have a fair trial if the jury can see every decision the judge makes about the conduct of the trial being questioned by an unqualified and uninformed peanut gallery. We also just do not want anything like the partisan shitshow that was the environment surrounding the say, the Rittenhouse trial anywhere near us. What about the cops in the case getting their own Netflix special?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 11:34
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:What about the cops in the case getting their own Netflix special? UK police are spectacularly bad at PR and will step on every rake possible. But they are at least doing it after the event. e: the core problem with the narrative that Letby was a scapegoat for NHS institutional failures is that the actual institutional failure was that doctors kept going to managers saying "holy poo poo if you leave this woman alone in the ward then we come back in the morning to dead babies, this pattern is far too obvious to be ignored" and the response was "please stop making complaints about your colleague, we intend to do nothing". NHS management is rotten and complacent, but in that way. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 11:48 on May 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Are you talking about the doctor who moonlighted as a guest on TV where he guessed diagnoses for naughty children?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 12:16
|
|