|
I live in an apartment complex in Philadelphia PA. My downstairs neighbors smoke, and this causes me two problems: 1) I can't be on my balcony, keep my balcony door open, or keep my bedroom window open. If I do any of this, my apartment fills with cigarette smoke. It's disgusting. 2) If they smoke inside, which they did all winter, I will get hints of smoke that come up through my walls (wherever there are pipes, there are empty walls). My bathroom typically fills first, I think because they smoke in their bathroom and turn on the ceiling vent. My girlfriend spoke to one of them about smoking (last summer) and they were somewhat complacent, but it's been nice out for about three days and I've had to run and close my door repeatedly because of smoke. I complained to the office about the smoke in our apartment, and one of their comments was "We can't tell them not to smoke." They had maintenance install some spray foam under our bathroom sink where an opening to the wall existed. This helped, somewhat. Not a ton. I was still able to smell ANY smoke, and that's too much. My lease has the following clauses in it: In section 20. Limitations on Conduct "We may regulate: (1) the use of patios, balconies, and porches" "We may exclude from the apartment community ... guests or others who ... [are] disturbing other residents" In section 21. Prohibited Conduct "You and your occupants may not engage in ... disturbing the rights, comfort, health, safety, or convenience of others" Do I have any ground to force the apartment complex to [1] make them stop smoking outside [2] make the complex end my lease without fees or [3] some other solution I haven't thought of? My lease ends in August. I pay too much money for this apartment and I hate the place because of this issue. I don't want to live all summer dealing with smoke in/around my apartment. lament.cfg fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Apr 15, 2011 |
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
Mucilaginous posted:I have a question about landlord requirements. It is possible, but there is no state-wide law that addresses the subject. The local municipality's codes will dictate. In general, the larger the city, the more likely there is to be a occupancy code or local landlord/tenant ordinance that would require electrical updates. And if he is going to take a federal Section 8 voucher for rental assistance, the answer is almost certainly yes, due to the requirements of that program.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
zzyzx posted:Depending on where you are and your money situation, you might qualify for assistance from Community Legal Services - it's free, and I know they have a division that deals specifically with consumer cases. Thank you for this. gvibes posted:Have you tried calling your lender to bitch about the repo company? Based on some forums I browsed, it sounds like it worked in a couple instances. I called the lender and they advised me that the repo company can charge any fees they like "because they're a business." This didn't seem like sound logic to me. Anyways, I heard back from the State AG, they advised me that the company can bill me the fee but that legally they could not withhold my property. So I took a sheriff's deputy out to the location and though the company protested a bit, they were forced to relinquish my property. I wish I had the money to pursue this further just because I assume other people who feel like they have no other options are just paying the fee in order to get their poo poo back. This disturbs me because generally people who are having property repossessed don't have a lot of money in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
My cousin's idiot boyfriend got caught doing some filesharing and now he's getting letters from the MPAA and RIAA. Since I'm the only person he knows that 'knows a lot about, like, computers and poo poo' he turns to me for advice. I don't know jack poo poo about RIAA/MPAA issues, but I figure this is the best place to turn for general advice on how to deal with the entertainment industry suits. We're in the great state of Kentucky and although I don't expect anything way to take them out in a one-two punch, if anyone has some advice that I can share with this kid to keep him from getting sued for everything he's worth it would be much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
-Fish- posted:My cousin's idiot boyfriend got caught doing some filesharing and now he's getting letters from the MPAA and RIAA. Since I'm the only person he knows that 'knows a lot about, like, computers and poo poo' he turns to me for advice. I don't know jack poo poo about RIAA/MPAA issues, but I figure this is the best place to turn for general advice on how to deal with the entertainment industry suits. We're in the great state of Kentucky and although I don't expect anything way to take them out in a one-two punch, if anyone has some advice that I can share with this kid to keep him from getting sued for everything he's worth it would be much appreciated. Neither the RIAA nor MPAA (which are two different industry organizations) are currently suing individual file sharers. Does the letter specifically say that it's from either organization? Are you sure it's not a scam?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:It is possible, but there is no state-wide law that addresses the subject. The local municipality's codes will dictate. In general, the larger the city, the more likely there is to be a occupancy code or local landlord/tenant ordinance that would require electrical updates. And if he is going to take a federal Section 8 voucher for rental assistance, the answer is almost certainly yes, due to the requirements of that program. It's a really, really small town, but a county seat. He's not taking section 8, it's much more complicated than that. Basically, the neighbors who lived next door for years (and always watched after my grandmother/his mom) are going into foreclosure, and he's wanting to let them live there and work on rehabbing the house in lieu of rent. However, the house is a gigantic deathtrap. If you've seen the movie Money Pit, it's basically that house. There's literally a hole in the side of the house leading into the dirt basement. I've had to help him remove several dead animals from the basement each year. In the other two units (it's a 3-unit home) there are gas lamps on the walls for light and the three electrical outlets are actually in the floor. I'm pretty sure there's a gas leak coming from the converted wood stove that serves as the heater for the entire house, the stove doesn't work, and if you have the lights on while using a hairdryer, a glass fuse pops. My dad admitted that the easy way to fix that is to use pennies instead of fuses. I wish he was kidding. If it were up to me, I'd have the house donated to the fire department for them to practice on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
I have a question about depositions in Colorado. Namely, can I refuse to participate? I quit my previous job nearly a year ago for a number of reasons including regularly having to be involved in lawsuits. I got a call today from my old company's attorney saying that I'll probably be called in to do another deposition for a suit related to a previous matter I had already been deposed in, signed affidavits and testified in an arbitration hearing about. I'm not listed as a defendant or an expert witness, if that matters. I'm pretty much over it at this point and I'm hoping that I can tell these millionaires to find someone else to be involved in their dick-waving contest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
Mucilaginous posted:It's a really, really small town, but a county seat. He's not taking section 8, it's much more complicated than that. Basically, the neighbors who lived next door for years (and always watched after my grandmother/his mom) are going into foreclosure, and he's wanting to let them live there and work on rehabbing the house in lieu of rent. It sounds like a bad idea to rent that house to anyone. Even without specific regulation of the wiring, when that house kills someone, your dad is going to be liable for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 11:15
|
|
|
timmporary posted:I have a question about depositions in Colorado. I don't know Colorado law, but generally speaking, unless they subpoena you, you don't have to show. But don't ignore a subpoena.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 11:17
|
|
|
traveling midget posted:I live in an apartment complex in Philadelphia PA. I think you are out of luck. If you have lived there that long and then all of a sudden you want out of your lease for neighbors smoking it will seem a little fishy. People smoke in apartments. They also cook smelly food and grill out and make noise and other things that are just part of living in an apartment building. When you look for a new place you might find a building that is non-smoking. Legally speaking (not a lawyer not legal advice) if you leave early you will probably have to pay the rest of your rent until they find someone to live there. Evidently in PA there is no legal need for the landlord to rent the apt out (duty to mitigate damages) either so that's unfortunate. beejay fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Apr 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 13:25
|
|
|
beejay posted:I think you are out of luck. If you have lived there that long and then all of a sudden you want out of your lease for neighbors smoking it will seem a little fishy. People smoke in apartments. They also cook smelly food and grill out and make noise and other things that are just part of living in an apartment building. When you look for a new place you might find a building that is non-smoking. I'm obviously not a lawyer either, my only qualifications are having spent way to long this year learning about landlord/tenant law in CA but I think beejay is right. One of the examples given in the Nolo tenants rights book I have is actually close to your situation and the conclusion is that if you didn't specifically request a no smoking apartment and have that mentioned in your lease you can't break a lease because the smell is now bothering you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
I moved in to the apartment in August '09, and the occupant of their apartment wasn't a smoker. They moved in early last summer ('10) and as soon as the interior smoke issue arose, I contacted management about it, and they were mostly unhelpful ("We can't tell them not to smoke"). There are no smoking/non-smoking apartments, and the words "smoke, smoking, cigarette" do not appear anywhere in the lease. The apartment management DOES regulate the use of balconies and thruways as grills are prohibited and leaving trash, etc in your doorway is given a warning/fine. If the lease has a provision claiming that behavior which disturbs my health, comfort, and convenience is prohibited, and the lease has a provision claiming the landlord has the right to regulate use of balconies, patios, etc; how do they not have the legal duty to regulate (what I consider and what could be proven to be) prohibited activity? It's interfering with the habitability of my apartment, surely I have some ground to stand on. TL;DR gently caress you, smokers. lament.cfg fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Apr 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
wacky posted:A little late but, good job sticking to your guns and declining the job. It's hilarious to me that the hiring manager wanted you to agree to a clause which isn't "evil" and that they would never, ever enforce. Why then would the legal team not remove the clause? All it would take is one of your side projects taking off, gaining lots of popularity or getting media attention for the company to suddenly begin enforcing that innocent little piece of boilerplate. Obviously the hiring manager was pissed off because now he has to start filling in that role all over again, but as someone else said it is their loss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
If anything the hiring manager should be pissed off at upper management. People who want to start their own companies and work on independent projects are highly motivated, competent, and passionate about their work. If I were a hiring manager, those would be the people that I would want to hire. In fact, many tech companies buy out small tech startups purely to get the personnel working for them. Having a boilerplate contract that, by design, keeps top people out of your organization is an extreme case of bureaucratic incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
Bankruptcy-related question, or possibly in the field of storage, trespass, or abandoned vehicles. My wife filed chapter 13 a little over a year ago. She was giving up a boat in the bankruptcy. The bank that holds the lien on the boat filed to have the bankruptcy stay on the boat lifted, several months ago, so that's presumably been done by now. (I'm not entirely sure because getting her lawyer to communicate anything is like pulling teeth from a mule.) The boat is still sitting (possibly against local codes) in our driveway, now uninsured. She tried contacting the bank to ask them if/when they were going to come and get it, they say they can't talk to us because we have a lawyer. Our lawyer basically won't talk to them says there's nothing we can do. Is this true? It seems outrageous and unlikely that a thing that we don't own can legally be left on our property indefinitely and that we should have no recourse. If we left it in a storage unit and didn't pay, they would be able to do something about it (charge accumulating fees, turn those into a lien, sell the boat and keep the part of the proceeds that covers the fees) - are our rights as owners of a storage space less than those of a storage company? I've seen people claiming that threatening to start charging storage fees might spur the bank into picking their crap up, but I haven't seen anyone saying that such a threat actually has any teeth. Does it? With proper notification could we legally start charging a storage fee, culminating in piling a lien of our own onto the boat? Edit: Florida, in case that's important. Edit2: I know the OP says don't ask "is my lawyer wrong!" I'm not really doing that, I'm more asking "I already know my lawyer is lazy so is there something he's not telling us?" (Lazy as in he's just barely managing to deal with the trustee, which is basically all he's been required to do for the case, and fails to communicate anything back to us including things we actually need to deal with.) roomforthetuna fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 07:55
|
|
|
Get a new lawyer
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 08:41
|
|
|
IANAL but why don't you just have it towed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 09:45
|
|
|
Mr.Showtime posted:IANAL but why don't you just have it towed? If the boat has been the subject of a court order, it would be a bad idea to dispose of it. The poster's lawyer is dropping the ball, time to move on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Mr.Showtime posted:IANAL but why don't you just have it towed? The "get another lawyer" advice would be great, if we could do that without ending up paying for both lawyers, and without the new one probably being just as useless. Honestly it seems like we'd have had an easier (and certainly cheaper) time of it if she hadn't even had the one lawyer in the first place. At least that way we'd be able to communicate with the trustee and any other parties. Adding more lawyers doesn't seem like the solution here. Unless there's some sort of sue-your-lawyer-for-being-useless lawyer we could hire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:The "get another lawyer" advice would be great, if we could do that without ending up paying for both lawyers, and without the new one probably being just as useless. Honestly it seems like we'd have had an easier (and certainly cheaper) time of it if she hadn't even had the one lawyer in the first place. At least that way we'd be able to communicate with the trustee and any other parties. Adding more lawyers doesn't seem like the solution here. Unless there's some sort of sue-your-lawyer-for-being-useless lawyer we could hire. I'd definitely consult with yet a third, independent lawyer to find out whether you can sue your first useless lawyer before hiring a second laywer. As for finding a better second lawyer, your best bet would be to ask a fourth lawyer who doesn't know any of the other lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
Solved, Thanks!
Cheesetits fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Aug 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
Cheesetits posted:...US territory... because it is technically a different country with a different legal system... you might have to come a little more specific with a location, as all US territories are part of the US and use the US legal system, unless you're considering Iraq as a US territory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:you might have to come a little more specific with a location, as all US territories are part of the US and use the US legal system, unless you're considering Iraq as a US territory.  For what it is worth, my father (also a lawyer, madness runs in the family) had a client with a licensing issue due to a felony allegedly committed in Mexico. Even after he was exonerated by a Mexican appeals court it was a pain in the rear end. If this guy was in a non-US place, he should really consult a lawyer. It is an extremely complex issue. If he plead in a US territory (states, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, and such), he's been convicted by a US court and that's all that matters. So the locations gonna matter. If this is for licensing or a security clearance he should talk to an attorney regardless as being wrong can get you charged with a new crime. nm fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Apr 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
I'm not barred in Texas, and Texas can have some freaky rear end laws regarding criminal poo poo, so this is generic advice rather than a legal opinion/advice. You'll need to get a TX lawyer for the actual answer: Like nm said, if it's an actual US territory, he's probably hosed. If it's a foreign country, he might be ok. In Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005), which was a case involving a guy with a foreign conviction checking the 'no' box when applying for a domestic gun permit, the US Supreme Court said Congress generally legislates with domestic concerns in mind, and they adopted a presumption that Congress ordinarily intends its statutes to have domestic, not extraterritorial application. The Court noted that foreign penal convictions differed from domestic penal convictions in many ways, thereby creating an inconsistency in the American notion of fairness. Hence, the Court held that the phrase "convicted in any court" referred only to domestic courts and not to foreign courts. HOWEVER this decision has been under legislative attack, both on the state and federal level. I cannot stress enough to get an opinion from an attorney barred in Texas if that's where he's applying, it's worth the extra effort to avoid any potential problems down the road.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Early termination fee = liquidated damages. Sorry about the delay in replying. By the time that I break the lease my name will have been on the lease for over a year. The rent credit is actually handled in an addendum: "1. In conduction with the parties' execution of the lease, subject to the terms and conditions of this Rent Credit Addendum, Landlord hereby grants Tenant a total rental credit in the amount of $1260 toward rents due and owing or which may become due and owing pursuant to the lease. . . . 3. Tenant's right to receive the foregoing rent credit is conditioned upon tenant maintaining his/her residency in good standing throughout the full term of the lease ending January 31, 2012. 4. In the event that the tenant violates any of the terms, covenants or conditions of the lease, including but not limited to untimely payment of rent, voluntary or involuntary termination of the lease, or any of Landlord's rules and regulations governing the property, then: a. the rent credit shall be cancelled and be null and void; b. the tenant shall repay the credit granted herein to the extent then received, and tenant shall be liable for the balance of the rental payments set fourth in the lease that may be due and owing through the end of the lease term without regard to any rent credit; and c. Tenant shall be liable for other damages that the landlord may suffer by reason of tenant's breach of any of the terms and conditions of this lease. 5. All other terms, covenants, and conditions of the lease remain in effect and are binding upon the parties hereto, save and except where modified by the terms and conditions of the addendum."
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
Solved, thanks!
Cheesetits fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Aug 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 06:10
|
|
|
Cheesetits posted:I doubt he will be buying any more guns in the next few years. I will also tell him he really needs to talk to a lawyer here. If he owns a gun, he should talk to a lawyer now. Being a felon, or convicted of any crime that can be punished by imprisonment of more than one year*, and owning a gun (with the exception of certain antique-style black powder guns) is a federal felony. Being a felon and buying ammo that's ever crossed a state line is a federal felony, too. There may be state laws to worry about, as well. This is not something to gently caress with. * Note that that's "can be" - it doesn't matter that he only ended up with probation. If he could have gone to prison for more than a year, then it qualifies
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 06:36
|
|
|
Cheesetits posted:Yes, it is defiantly a US territory, and not Irag (or Guam for the record). From what he has said, when he signed his plea deal his lawyer there told him not to worry about it, and it wouldn't matter back in the states. The probation people over there also told him his probation is limited to the island, and would only be in effect if he returned sometime in the next three years. But then again it is a pretty hosed up place, which is why he was looking for some kind of confirmation. Yeah, my best guess as to what the lawyers/probation officers there meant was that their systems probably aren't currently linked in to a federal database, so it might not pop up automatically if he got busted in the states or if someone did a simple online search. That said, if that's the case, these offices tend to get federal money for upgrades every few years, and at some point down the road, it's highly likely that they will be linked in, and that the conviction would pop up on a routine background check. And like nm said, if it's a false declaration under oath, there's possible criminal/perjury charges.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Cheesetits posted:Yes, it is defiantly a US territory, and not Irag (or Guam for the record). From what he has said, when he signed his plea deal his lawyer there told him not to worry about it, and it wouldn't matter back in the states. The probation people over there also told him his probation is limited to the island, and would only be in effect if he returned sometime in the next three years. But then again it is a pretty hosed up place, which is why he was looking for some kind of confirmation. Jesus Christ if he currently owns a gun he needs to talk to a lawyer tomorrow. Especially in Texas. I'm pretty sure they behead you if you are a felon with a gun in Texas, especially if the felony is drug-based.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
This is about the Direct Cebit Guarantee in the UK. My sister took out car insurance in February, she called up and took it out making a payment on the phone and then they sent out the welcome pack with the credit agreement which she was to fill in and return in the prepaid envelope within 14 days, which she did. The payments were £29.16 a month but this month they tried to take out £39.16 which bounced because she didn't have enough in the bank to cover the extra £10, and she got a letter from them saying that as it had bounced they would be trying to take it out again with an extra £20 charge for the bouncing incident. She called them up and they said that it is in their fine print that if they do not receive the credit agreement back within 14 days then they will add a £10 fine to the second payment. According to them this covers the requirement to inform customers of extra charges levied within 7 days of payment being requested but as far as my sister was concerned they had received the credit agreement and all was dandy. My question is can they take extra money based on an 'if'? My sister had no indication that the form hadn't been received by them in the 7 weeks between posting it back and getting charged. Also if they haven't got the credit agreememnt can they take money at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 13:32
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:This is about the Direct Cebit Guarantee in the UK. Presumably, if this is for insurance, she must have received the insurance certificate / cover note - this might have a useful date on it. She can use the date of the start of the insurance coverage to show when they must have received the application form. Approaching from another angle: make sure she she only paid for the time that the insurance cover actually started. If she sent off the form on the 1st - but the certificate was issued on the 21st, she should not pay for the whole month coverage. Whatever you do, always send a written letter along with any phoned conversations. This is for your protection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 14:07
|
|
|
What's the best way to ensure you get your security deposit back at the end of a lease (in Texas) at an apartment that the internet says never refunds it back? Pictures, obviously, but before signing the lease? After signing but before receiving keys? Pictures signed by management? They get copies and I get copies? Special clause in the lease about the pictures? I just want to avoid all loopholes they might try.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
drat Bananas posted:What's the best way to ensure you get your security deposit back at the end of a lease (in Texas) at an apartment that the internet says never refunds it back? Pictures, obviously, but before signing the lease? After signing but before receiving keys? Pictures signed by management? They get copies and I get copies? Special clause in the lease about the pictures? I just want to avoid all loopholes they might try. No matter where you rent you should always do an initial walk through with the landlord. Make an list of any damages/issues and take pictures of everything. We took pictures, numbered them, gave the landlord a list of damages and a CD with all the pictures. And yes get them to sign the list and both of you get copies. Can't answer when you have to do the initial walk through there, here it has to be done within a week of moving in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
drat Bananas posted:What's the best way to ensure you get your security deposit back at the end of a lease (in Texas) at an apartment that the internet says never refunds it back? Pictures, obviously, but before signing the lease? After signing but before receiving keys? Pictures signed by management? They get copies and I get copies? Special clause in the lease about the pictures? I just want to avoid all loopholes they might try. Have the management agree to a walkthrough before you sign. During the walkthrough, write down and photograph every discrepancy from perfect, no matter how small. Have management sign the written discrepancy sheet and make copies for you and for them. Download photos to their computer, keep copies for yourself. The 800 pound loophole that remains is 'normal wear and tear.' You might try listing the things that you consider normal wear and tear and the things you would admit are not normal wear and tear. Try to get management to sign off on your list as a agreed upon understanding of 'normal wear and tear.'
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
drat Bananas posted:What's the best way to ensure you get your security deposit back at the end of a lease (in Texas) at an apartment that the internet says never refunds it back? Pictures, obviously, but before signing the lease? After signing but before receiving keys? Pictures signed by management? They get copies and I get copies? Special clause in the lease about the pictures? I just want to avoid all loopholes they might try. Upon move out: Vacuum and wash everything.. Scrub toilets, showers, windowsills, banisters, sinks, inside fridge/microwave/washer, everything. Also, replace your drip pans. A lot of people forget the drip pans. Consider shampooing the carpet and repainting. Take pictures of everything when you move out (with a copy of that day's paper in the shot). With copies of the move in pictures and the move out pictures, you have decent ammo for small claims court when they inevitably find some reason to try to keep the deposit. Alternatively, you can get creative and shop around a class action!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
quote:California Government Code Section 818.8 Can you explain the origin of laws like this? These just don't make much sense to me as a person who depends on government services.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
dsh posted:Can you explain the origin of laws like this? These just don't make much sense to me as a person who depends on government services. Off the top of my head and in the most vague, general terms possible: Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, you can usually sue a company when the agent of that company injures you in the line of duty. The classic example is suing UPS if a UPS driver runs you over. Misrepresentation (a.k.a. fraud) is usually no different. If, say, a real estate agent lies to you about the value of a house you can usually sue the pants off of Prudential Real Estate. However, the government cannot legally lie, and if an agent lies then they are not within the scope of their duties for the government. Additionally, given the six gajillion individual interactions with citizens the government has every day, some probably involve false statements, most accidental (negligent) but I'm sure some are intentional. It would be extremely cost prohibitive if everybody was suing the government every time the DMV said "your car title will be mailed on Monday" when it's actually mailed on Tuesday. Also note that that statute only prohibits money damages in the context of fraud. If the California Department of Agriculture screws up your farm equipment certification paperwork, you can file suit to get the situation straightened out. But you can't sue for a billion dollars of damages because they lied to you. You may have a suit for other damages, but not for the lies themselves. At least, at a cursory glance and answering out of my rear end, that's what it appears to me. BigHead fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Apr 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 07:21
|
|
|
I don't know anything about CA law, but 20 seconds on Google told me that there's case law limiting that statute to commercial or financial transactions, so from the sound of your question, it likely doesn't mean what you think it means.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 07:31
|
|
|
dsh posted:Can you explain the origin of laws like this? These just don't make much sense to me as a person who depends on government services. Before the Cops on the Beat thread was closed in D&D, there were occasional absurd stories posted that related to this, where cops would gently caress some poo poo up and then the PD/city/state would say to the victim, "You're SOL, we have immunity." Here is one case, for example, and the article includes a (very) brief description of the origin of sovereign immunity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 12:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
BigHead posted:Upon move out: Vacuum and wash everything.. Scrub toilets, showers, windowsills, banisters, sinks, inside fridge/microwave/washer, everything. Also, replace your drip pans. A lot of people forget the drip pans. Consider shampooing the carpet and repainting. Take pictures of everything when you move out (with a copy of that day's paper in the shot). Another thing is to get written agreements about things like carpet shampooing or replacement. In some areas, it is common practice to replace the carpet every time a tenant who has a pet moves out, and deduct that from the damage deposit. In many, the landlord at least shampoos the carpet even if it isn't needed, and deducts that. Try to ask for a walkthrough with the landlord before you move out to ask them to point out any damages and get the results in writing, this can be a condition of the lease. A lot of this depends on the market in your area, if it is a tenant's market and you have great credit you should be able to negotiate these terms in the lease, if rental property is scarce in your area or you don't have good credit you'll have to suck it up. Small claims court is always an option, although most people are scared of it because they want a good landlord reference if they plan to move again soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 14:09
|
|