|
Alchenar posted:It's ridiculous and you don't have to sign it. /agree, it's total crap. And that waiver is basically to save your attorney some time and money, if she's a butthole then they just proceed with a hearing. You just wait, it'll come out in the wash either way.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
I am thinking of starting a small Amazon store making a certain product, and there is an old friend of mine who I was thinking of contacting and trying to partner with. What kind of legal steps should I take to make sure he doesn't do anything to screw me over? It's not necessarily that I don't trust him, but it's been a few years, and I don't have much experience with this. Is there some kind of contract I can write up or something like that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
Doghouse posted:I am thinking of starting a small Amazon store making a certain product, and there is an old friend of mine who I was thinking of contacting and trying to partner with. What kind of legal steps should I take to make sure he doesn't do anything to screw me over? It's not necessarily that I don't trust him, but it's been a few years, and I don't have much experience with this. Is there some kind of contract I can write up or something like that? Get an attorney specializing in business associations to draw up a contract. Depending on how elaborate a store you plan on making it may be worthwhile to discuss with the attorney about forming a corporation to manage the production and sale of this product. Even if you trust the guy completely you still want a contract covering the business arrangement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:Get an attorney specializing in business associations to draw up a contract. Depending on how elaborate a store you plan on making it may be worthwhile to discuss with the attorney about forming a corporation to manage the production and sale of this product. Even if you trust the guy completely you still want a contract covering the business arrangement. An alternative would be a formal partnership agreement, but it all depends on the details of what you're planning to do. Every possible form of business organisation you could go for will have different advantages and disadvantages, which is why it's best to get legal advice tailored to your situation. Your friend would probably need to be advised by a separate lawyer if it comes to you drawing up an agreement of some kind. However, before spending any money on lawyers, it's probably wise to discuss with him whether he's interested and to make up your own mind whether you trust him enough to go into business with him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
I hear a lot about states with no-fault divorces. In states where that isn't the case, what ARE some reasons/'faults' for the divorce? I'm in AZ, my parents were divorced ages ago, but it was a no-fault divorce (despite my dad cheating on my mom, stealing and hoarding money from their joint accounts, etc).
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
The three that spring immediately to mind are abandonment, adultery, and cruelty. There could be others, but that's what 15 seconds of thinking about it produced.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Note that even where there is fault, the spouses may opt for a no-fault divorce just to avoid a lengthy court battle over whether hubby did or did not boff the babysitter
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Bro Enlai posted:Note that even where there is fault, the spouses may opt for a no-fault divorce just to avoid a lengthy court battle over whether hubby did or did not boff the babysitter Some states (e.g., NY) historically did not allow no fault divorce. Even if the parties agreed, there still had to be some reason given for dissolution. This was finally remedied in 2010, when they added a no fault cause for divorce. Fault in divorce isn't like in tort - the fact that its available does not generally mean you want to go that route, even if you want to have custody/support fights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:I hear a lot about states with no-fault divorces. In states where that isn't the case, what ARE some reasons/'faults' for the divorce? Adultery, cruelty, abandonment, conviction of a felony, living apart and confinement in a mental hospital are the grounds in texas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Establishing "fault" -- wherein you get to call up a total stranger and ask how they feel about swearing an affidavit confirming they had sex with someone
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Adultery, cruelty, abandonment, conviction of a felony, living apart and confinement in a mental hospital are the grounds in texas. Impotence or infertility is usually on those lists. I have an episode of friends as support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Buggery (outside the marriage) is still on the books as fault grounds in VA. Woo!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Buggery (outside the marriage) is still on the books as fault grounds in VA. Woo! I wonder what they consider the difference between buggery outside of marriage and adultery. Just to clarify that its still sex if it is the backdoor? If so, kudos for thorough lawmaking VA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:I wonder what they consider the difference between buggery outside of marriage and adultery. Just to clarify that its still sex if it is the backdoor? If so, kudos for thorough lawmaking VA. A. A divorce from the bond of matrimony may be decreed: (1) For adultery; or for sodomy or buggery committed outside the marriage
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
I love that the word "buggery" appears in the law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
Doesn't sodomy/buggery mean both oral and anal sex? That always amused me, but I guess it goes back to the old Biblical definition of sodomy as non-procreative sex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Yeah I guess it's covering their bases. Here's the statute: Actually, historically buggery and sodomy meant more than just anal intercourse--they sort of catchall terms for "unnatural sex act," and covered bestiality, oral sex, and possibly other things as well. (I think there may have been some difference between the two--I think "sodomy" may have been more "oral and anal sex," and "buggery" more "sex with sheep," but don't quote me on that.) Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
I just take it as VA endorsing buggery within the marriage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Actually, historically buggery and sodomy meant more than just anal intercourse--they sort of catchall terms for "unnatural sex act," and covered bestiality, oral sex, and possibly other things as well. Sodomy refers to Sodom, as in Sodom an Gomorrah. The "Sin of Sodom" has been a Rorschach blot for various sins ever since. Adultery, unkindness to the poor, pride, homosexuality, inhospitality and lying have all been the sin of sodom. Christians have connected it more specifically to homosexual sex since the 6th century, and later expanded the interpretation to include any non-procreative sex. Buggery refers to Bulgarians, and the dirty sexual practices of those hell-bound heretics. This started in the 16th century as slander, pure an simple, of Cathars, Bogomils and the Eastern Orthodox.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
My ex-husband approached me in October- while we'd been separated since August 2006 (documented) we hadn't officially been divorced. He indicated that he was seriously considering re-marriage, then gave me the name of a lawyer that he had sent inquiries to and told me what it would cost, and asked if I wanted to split the cost of a flat fee uncontested divorce with him to finish the process more quickly. I said sure, since I'd been dragging my feet typing up the paperwork anyway. He then asked me if I would be willing to front the cost of it- I hesitated because he's never kept his word when it comes to money issues. He said the exact amount, and said that he'd pay exactly his half on a specific date. After thinking about it, I told him that I wanted specifics from him- how much he would pay, on what date, and what he thought the consequence should be if he failed to honor the agreement. I warned him that my own terms were that if he didn't honor his proposed agreement that I would be filing for full custody because it would be the last straw (in all honesty, the last straw really should have been years ago). The date comes and goes, he starts making excuses. The receipt that the lawyer (he picked) gave me wasn't detailed enough and just having the amount on there (the exact amount he already knew it was going to be before he asked me to do it) wasn't good enough. He won't pay until the divorce is finalized. etc. etc. Now he's put me in the situation where I have to stick to my own word, since the whole reason I left him was the fact that he never stuck to his. I'm all for swallowing my pride and being able/willing to admit when I'm in the wrong, but I'm just beyond pissed. HE came to ME and still is rationalizing his failure in his mind, blaming me for it, etc. I stop taking his calls and ask him to please stop calling us. He says that I'm keeping him from his son (who he called maybe every 2-3 weeks before that) and that the disagreement is between him and me and shouldn't effect his capability to speak with his son. From a legal standpoint, I'm pretty sure the judge will tell me the same thing, but since there's not currently a signed parenting agreement and I have court papers filed, I've refused. Mostly on principle. I don't want to actually care if he remembers to call my/our/his son; my fiancee and I have been together since my kiddo was very small and he actually gets the concepts that he has two dads and doesn't have a problem with it. My ex forgets to call anyway, so it's generally a non-issue. Now, though, it's like he is insisting on having what he didn't care about when he had it, because he doesn't have it anymore? Maybe that's too much psychology. Every single day I get a message from him- "can I talk to him" and every day my answer has been "sure if you've honored your agreement". Late last night I got an email from his lawyer (he decided to get one after telling me he wasn't and us agreeing to work this out ourselves via mediation), saying that the mediation process "will take a bit longer to be scheduled" and would I be willing to establish a temporary agreement allowing him to call our son on X days per week at X time. I had to laugh a bit because it was a good move for my ex to make. I responded to the lawyer and told him that I was acknowledging his email and would respond more completely within a certain number of hours, but that I had already extended the "invitation to exchange of an initial set of preferred terms for the parenting agreement" but that he hadn't responded. Now that I'm writing my promised, more detailed response, I'm wondering how much I should actually tell his lawyer about all of this- I'm unsure if I should be willing to assume how much he has/hasn't told him, and to be perfectly honest, I'd rather absolutely everything on the table instead of some sort of hidden cards to pull out when necessary. I almost feel like if his lawyer was fully aware of what I *could* bring up in a courtroom, he'd probably be more encouraging to my ex to cooperate more, since his cooperation level has been zero (he doesn't even pay any child support) so far. I acknowledge that there is a certain level of vulnerability in putting it all out there right away; it is very genuine to how I live my life though and would fit with my own moral code, if you will. I almost feel like I should just tell his lawyer exactly what the situation is, and what my consistent message has been to my ex. I mean did he think that by emailing me a request through his lawyer I would change my mind? Was it supposed to? Does anyone have any advice on this? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Caylene, you need a lawyer. Regardless of whether you were going to pay his lawyer or not, his lawyer represents his best interests and not yours. You cannot handle this on your own. Just respond to his lawyer that you're going to seek counsel and stop talking to him in the mean time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:Caylene, you need a lawyer. Regardless of whether you were going to pay his lawyer or not, his lawyer represents his best interests and not yours. You cannot handle this on your own. Just respond to his lawyer that you're going to seek counsel and stop talking to him in the mean time. What is the logic behind the statement "you cannot handle this on your own"? I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Caylene posted:= Yes. I'm a divorce lawyer. When I represent people and the other side is pro se, I will outright gently caress the other person over. It's my job to. I will browbeat you and you will get the poo poo end of the stick. YOU CANNOT HANDLE THIS ON YOUR OWN IF YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED. You do not know the law. You do not know the judges. You don't know the rules of evidence. You don't know what the family code says. And even if you do, I will convince you that you are wrong. It's my job to gently caress you over because I represent him. The only way to counter this is if you hire someone to gently caress him over. Don't talk to his lawyer. Talk to yours.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Caylene posted:
Get your own lawyer and sue your soon to be ex-husband for attorneys fees (assuming he makes more than you.) As mentioned above going into a divorce pro se against an attorney is probably the stupidest thing you could ever do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Caylene posted:[this is why joat mon loves crim] Get thee to a lawyer. His lawyer is not there to help you. Confessing that you are denying your husband contact with his son as a bargaining chip will reflect poorly on you. Save your openness for your attorney. Listen to your attorney. e: Caylene posted:What is the logic behind the statement "you cannot handle this on your own"? I'm genuinely curious. for starters. ee: Caylene posted:Now that I'm writing my promised, more detailed response, I'm wondering how much I should actually tell his lawyer about all of this- I'm unsure if I should be willing to assume how much he has/hasn't told him, and to be perfectly honest, I'd rather absolutely everything on the table instead of some sort of hidden cards to pull out when necessary. I almost feel like if his lawyer was fully aware of what I *could* bring up in a courtroom, he'd probably be more encouraging to my ex to cooperate more, since his cooperation level has been zero (he doesn't even pay any child support) so far. joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
It certainly shows you are not totally interested in the best interests of your child and that you would use your child as a weapon. Which is bad. Bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Are you a practising specialist in divorce law? No? You are out of your depth. Get a lawyer. Yes? You are out of your depth. Get a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Don't withhold custody to your loving child over money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Caylene posted:
Also, this needs to be addressed. Hire a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It certainly shows you are not totally interested in the best interests of your child and that you would use your child as a weapon. Which is bad. Bad. I'm irritated with myself for having told my ex that (I'd be seeking full custody) before this all started- I never have and never intended to- our child is equally as disinterested in talking to him and I'm ambivalent to the whole thing. I just thought it would really drive home that it was serious and he shouldn't f*ck around. Now I look bad for doing it, which I hate, but will look like I don't keep my word if I give in, which I equally hate. Anyway. I guess I'm hiring a lawyer after all. Thanks all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Caylene posted:I'm irritated with myself for having told my ex that (I'd be seeking full custody) before this all started- I never have and never intended to- our child is equally as disinterested in talking to him and I'm ambivalent to the whole thing. I just thought it would really drive home that it was serious and he shouldn't f*ck around. Now I look bad for doing it, which I hate, but will look like I don't keep my word if I give in, which I equally hate. Definitely 100% you need to get a lawyer. Don't worry about looking bad or keeping your word, because your ex doesn't care and you won't care in the long-run either. You're just tired of being yanked around. The best way to yank back is to get a lawyer and get a child support order in place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Caylene posted:I'm irritated with myself for having told my ex that (I'd be seeking full custody) before this all started- I never have and never intended to- our child is equally as disinterested in talking to him and I'm ambivalent to the whole thing. I just thought it would really drive home that it was serious and he shouldn't f*ck around. Now I look bad for doing it, which I hate, but will look like I don't keep my word if I give in, which I equally hate. You don't look bad yet. Us saying you look bad is just attorneys thinking of what we would say about you in pleadings and custody hearings. IE it is from a legal perspective, not a human perspective. As for not keeping your word, you can rationalize that as "I said that before I got an attorney and I was being coerced by his attorney."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Sodomy refers to Sodom, as in Sodom an Gomorrah. The "Sin of Sodom" has been a Rorschach blot for various sins ever since. Adultery, unkindness to the poor, pride, homosexuality, inhospitality and lying have all been the sin of sodom. Christians have connected it more specifically to homosexual sex since the 6th century, and later expanded the interpretation to include any non-procreative sex. I don't remember the citation or anything, but there's a fairly famous British divorce case in which the wife alleged that she needed a divorce because the husband engaged in "certain Hunnish practices." I love that phrase.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Michigan, not being sued, etc. My partner quit her job at a store and got hired at a jewelry store in 2010, and after already getting hired her employer insisted that she sign a non-compete clause in order for her to continue her employment. She of course signed the clause because she couldn't go back to the previous job, yadda yadda. Now she has been commuting 45 minutes to her job every day which costs a fortune in gas, and this other jewelry store owner offered her a better job within 2 minutes of where she lives and she accepted the position because she can't afford the 400+ in gas every month to get to the first jewelry store. She's afraid that the non-compete she signed might be binding, but I'm skeptical. Here's the agreement: Other than the glaring "can't get a job at any other store in the multiverse" portion, everywhere I have read about non-competes it seems like 5 years is unheard of for this kind of thing, and the agreement is extremely vague altogether so it shouldn't be enforceable. Should she be worried about being sued over this? Dolphin fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
'and all nations worldwide' lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
It's vague in scope ("indirectly compete with"?), it has no geographical limitation, and it's 5 years long. (not a lawyer but) I can't see a court in the world enforcing that thing.
bub spank fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
That's remarkably unenforceable. It's far too overbroad, it's vague, and it's unlikely your partner is bringing particular customers (clients), or goodwill with her to the new store that would harm the other store. So they lose on the law, they lose on damages, and no judge wants to put someone out of work. The only thing to worry about is that the other side threatens to sue/get an injunction as a bargaining chip or to be an rear end in a top hat, but it's pretty unlikely if your partner works at a retail jewelry place like Zales or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
That's what I thought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Holy poo poo 5 years. What the gently caress? Also it looks more like a non-compete about working somewhere, looking at all their designs, and running off to a competitor with those designs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
It looks like the non-compete applies only to designs that partner made for the jewelry store. The 'signed sealed and delivered' is a good indicator that no lawyer has seen the document. (Or was a Stevie Wonder fan) Does "sign or you're fired" count as consideration?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 21:01
|
|