|
General Panic posted:I mean, how much more aggressive do you want than - "do this or we don't complete - and we'll insist on our deposit back"? I was kind of flippant in my reply, but this. Your lawyer already politely told them to fix their poo poo or to go gently caress themselves, the only thing you would really get with a more "aggressive" lawyer is someone that blusters more dramatically or starts litigation before it's really necessary.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:is someone that blusters more dramatically or starts litigation before it's really necessary. Do not hire this person. (Unless you are made of money.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Do not hire this person. (Unless you are made of money.) Even then only do it if you have some sort of money-hating vendetta.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Exhibit #HighNumber in our multi-part series on how clients can't meaningfully assess the job their counsel does for them Lawyer does her diligence on a simple conveyance, catches a mistake that should have already been noticed by the purchaser and the realtor, goes about fixing it, purchaser considers ditching her because she's not sufficiently belligerent about it
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Thanks everybody for your good advice. terrorist ambulance, that's not exactly how it went. I tried to check with the municipality before we put in our final offer and they would not release the information to me and told me I needed a lawyer to be doing a title search to get it. I also had to ask my lawyer to check the permits, they don't usually do that around here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
Step one: Show up to your court date and simply ask for mercy. Wear nice clothes and be polite. Calling the Judge "sir" or "ma'am" is, like, 80% of being successful in traffic court. Be prepared to apologize and promise never to do it again. Also, never do it again. Step two: You kind of sound like an angry child who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Don't be surprise if step one doesn't work. BigHead fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Feb 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 10:48
|
|
|
FWIW there was probably a sign somewhere saying you need a transponder; you might want to double-check with google street view. I just drove past the new express lanes (used to just be regular HOV lanes) on the 110 today and there were signs indicating a transponder is required. (And what a load of poo poo; the toll is $0 for high occupancy vehicles so they can claim they never stole the HOV lane from us, but you still need to buy the transponder for $35 and pay a $5/month maintenance fee. Not really free, and those of us just passing through LA have basically no ability to use this previously-free, taxpayer-built stretch of interstate at all. gently caress that.) Best of luck though. If it doesn't say anything about a transponder anywhere I totally agree with you (on a personal level; not that I expect that to matter in court).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:IANAL but I get hit a lot. The guy behind you should be at fault for both impacts. Do you live in CA? We have some weird at-fault laws when it comes to rear-end accidents. IANAL either, but I believe the only time you're not liable is if the accident happens in a parking lot. So even though the poster was pushed into the SUV in the front by the guy behind him, he might run into difficulty with the hitter's insurance trying to get out of the damages to the front of the car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
fork bomb posted:he might run into difficulty with the hitter's insurance trying to get out of the damages to the front of the car. There is no "might" about it. What will the front driver say? did they feel one impact or two?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:There is no "might" about it. What will the front driver say? did they feel one impact or two? That's the issue. I've talked to my insurance Friday, and they said it all depends on the front driver, if he says one or two impacts. Insurance has been unable to get a hold of either parties so they're unable to determine who's liable as of yet. I should have called the police to get a report at the time, but for some reason that didn't cross my mind until everyone left. Kind of nervous since this happened Wednesday night, and they seem to be dodging my insurance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:Would it be worth pointing out that for relatively new drivers, there really isn't a fair indication as to how exactly FastTrak operates (Despite the FasTrak being seemingly an integral part of Califonira freeways, its never mentioned in the DMV manual or in any of the written driving tests) No. Regardless of the transponder or not, the HOV diamond means the same thing in every state and is clearly visible there on the signs, to which you have no excuse since you did not have anyone else in the vehicle. Quit being passive aggressive, quit trying to make a point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:That's not passive-aggressiveness, calm down on the accusations there. This is a great attitude to take when asking lawyers for advice. I'm sure it will work well with the judge too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
I am amused by the guy be unnecessarily hostile accusing others of it.fork bomb posted:Do you live in CA? We have some weird at-fault laws when it comes to rear-end accidents. IANAL either, but I believe the only time you're not liable is if the accident happens in a parking lot. So even though the poster was pushed into the SUV in the front by the guy behind him, he might run into difficulty with the hitter's insurance trying to get out of the damages to the front of the car. No, we don't. Negligence still controls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
On the one hand, I think we need an "Asked and answered!" objection smilie for this thread, but on the other hand, nobody'd ever be able to ask questions again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
I have a question about contract language in the context of professional graphic design services. If I purchase a stock photo under a limited license - specifically, this one (on the bottom) - and use it to create artwork that I then sell to a client, who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the use of the artwork remains within the restrictions of the license that I purchased? Can I include language in my own contract with my client that passes the responsibility on to them, or does some of it still lie with me? For instance, the standard license above has a limit of 500,000 reproductions. If my client goes above and beyond that with my artwork without notifying me, who's in trouble? I see this language in the terms & conditions: quote:“Licensee” means: (i) you, if you are an individual entering into this Agreement on your own behalf, (ii) your employer, if you are entering into this Agreement on behalf of your employer, or (iii) your client, if you are an agent entering into this Agreement on behalf of your client. If you are acting on behalf of your employer or client, you: (i) represent and warrant that you have the full legal right and authority to enter into this Agreement and bind such employer or client, (ii) will use the Content only for the interest of such employer or client, and (iii) agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. (i) makes it sound like I can simply have my client agree to a contract which makes them the responsible party, but (iii) makes it sound like I myself am also still responsible for upholding it in some way, so I'm confused.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:You're being unnecessarily hostile, in addition to accusing me of being stubbornly passive-aggressive when I was only listing every possible options to approach this (and asking if it'd be worth it) you're coming off as someone who's forcibly trying to find ways to be hostile. How I react to your actions on an internet forum is not indicative with how to approach to approach a judge. I am at his/her mercy. 1) We've established that the law is against you, and that the only thing that might help you is any sympathy that the judge might have for you. 2) You've asked us if pressing a certain issue would get you sympathy from the judge, or piss the judge off. 3) By pressing the issue here, you've started to piss people here off. I don't know the particular disposition of the judge you'll be speaking with, but the factors above paint a pretty compelling picture of what you should and shouldn't do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:No. Regardless of the transponder or not, the HOV diamond means the same thing in every state and is clearly visible there on the signs, to which you have no excuse since you did not have anyone else in the vehicle. Quit being passive aggressive, quit trying to make a point. You are the one being an aggressive douche here, and you're misinterpreting his situation to boot. He was not in a HOV-only lane. He was in an express lane. For HOV users it is free, but anyone else can use the express lanes too - if they pay the toll. Starpluck's issue was he didn't understand a transponder was required to pay the toll. It's an understandable mistake; I've driven on toll roads all over the country and the majority allow you to pay cash either on the way in or the way out, and if not they're clearly labeled things like "ExpressPass required" (or whatever the region's transponder of choice is). Certainly the new FastPass lanes on I-110 are labeled as requiring the transponder. (Since he was lacking any way to pay the toll, he was apparently treated as an HOV violator.) Now, ignorance may not be an excuse in court, but there's no reason to treat Starpluck like he's some kind of rear end in a top hat for not understanding how this worked (particularly since you own understanding is clearly flawed). All this aside, I've never gotten a ticket for an HOV violation but Starpluck, you should check to see if this is a violation that can be handled with a trial by declaration (written trial). The nice thing about the trial by declaration is that if you don't get the result you want, you can then request an actual court trial (so you get two cracks at it). I can't tell you how to write it to plead for leniency though. Maybe google will help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:You are the one being an aggressive douche here, and you're misinterpreting his situation to boot. He was not in a HOV-only lane. He was in an express lane. For HOV users it is free, but anyone else can use the express lanes too - if they pay the toll. No, I'm not misinterpreting anything. Read again what I said. I never said he was in an HOV-only lane. Break it down. If in fact to be in that lane you must either A) be a valid HOV user (having sufficient passengers in your car), or B) pay the toll, then he did neither. Like I said, the HOV diamond means the same thing no matter where you go. He was not in an HOV. It's not a winning argument to suggest to the judge "you know what, I don't actually know the rules of the road here" (which is literally what he said a few posts back in the thread) and then waste a busy judge's time with the sign issue, when anyone with half a brain would realize that was a transponder lane (it even had that little logo for the state's proprietary system next to the words express lane in the image he linked above. What, you think they had to tell it to you twice?) And, on top of that, by making the argument that he knew there was an exception to the HOV lane requirement, he would then be admitting that he should have known how to pay with the transponder. So either he didn't know the rules, and he shouldn't be driving at all, or he did and was intentionally violating the HOV lane. And that's all assuming he's being 100% forthright with his post, given that from what he said above, the officer wrote him up for an HOV violation, not failure to pay a toll. And on top of that, you don't ever EVER win by arguing with the judge as a non-lawyer. Usually not as a lawyer either, but definitely not in traffic court. Now to be fair, I don't practice in California, but common sense on how to talk to a judge is not any different in my jurisdiction. So no, he's a retard, and so are you. Leif. fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:So no, he's a retard, and so are you. IANAL but, for what it is worth, that's what you always tell the judge when they ask you how you plead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
Seems dumb to have a lane for transponder-only tolls but not spell out that there is no cash option. I'm not saying it's dumb to not have a cash option, I understand the reasoning perfectly and agree, just saying it might be useful to say there is no cash option. But then again, CA makes $500 a pop so maybe they're dumb like a fox. Do those circles describe a collision? What is that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
The ones on the road? Sensors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_loop
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Jessi Bond posted:I have a question about contract language in the context of professional graphic design services. This is not legal advice, but a hypothetical agreement of this sort might be drafted to state (a) the terms of the licence, (b) that the client is responsible for complying with those terms and (c) the client indemnifies the contractor from any possible claim if the licence is breached. Might even be worth having a seperate acknowledgment. As always, the best idea is to spend a few hundred dollars and speak to a lawyer who knows the specifics for your jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
I'm not entirely certain this constitutes a legal question per se, it's more about investigation/process serving, so if a mod disagrees I can ask it as a GBS thread or something. Long story short, a roofer took my deposit and will not refund it, even though he did no work and I never signed his contract. (We disagreed after he changed his price three times) Now he has my money and I am trying to sue him, but first I need to find him. He's not personally listed in the phone book. His business is a sole proprietorship at best. It's not licensed in his or my neighbouring cities. He advertised online, corresponded by email or cell phone. I can't get anywhere with a reverse phone search, email address searches or facebook etc. In my district, like many, I cannot file against a person without their address. How do I find this guy's details so I can file? The case is totally cut and dried as far as I'm concerned, but I can't even file! I'd rather not pay someone a ton of money for a skip trace, but is that my only option? I am in Ontario, Canada for the purposes of available tools and legal options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:I'd rather not pay someone a ton of money for a skip trace, but is that my only option? A fool and his money... Next time don't hand money to a shady unlicensed workman before signing a contract just because you want a job done suspiciously cheaply. Chalk this up to a life lesson, because I guarantee the time and effort necessary to pursue this is not worth it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Sadly there are a lot of fly by night unlicensed contractors who's business model is to rip people off. In my area the costs of finding the guy would exceed the costs of trying to recover unless you paid the guy a substantial sum. Life lesson for dealing with contractors is make sure they're licensed in your area and sign a contract before you give the money to avoid getting screwed like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:Long story short Internet snark aside, you are most likely boned. Finding him still doesn't mean you'll get good service on him. You could track him down, sue, and the service could (likely) still come back as bad. Even if you successfully sued, it doesn't mean you get paid. It just means you have a judgment in your hand... that's it. The court doesn't help you get paid. So you have to know where the guy banks or has assets, then go through a second slow court process to seize it. He's probably used to that dance by now, and it's not difficult for a person living on the edge to have no assets available to creditors. And it's a sketchy contractor who already has dozens of people chasing him, so he's already set to dodge you plus there's a dozen people ahead of you in line. You ain't getting it back. It sucks, I'm not saying it's right or fair, but it's the truth. Any further effort you spend on it is just adding to your loss. Sorry dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
I'm sure you guys are really proud about being able to point out I shouldn't have given the guy money, but I'm not asking for my dad to preach to me about a life lesson. If you want to soapbox about how much smarter you are and how you always verify a contractor's licence claims, check his insurance documents and reference the BBB and municipality, find another thread. I asked straight forward questions about locating a skip, and if no one can help and I lose out so be it. That doesn't mean I won't exhaust every avenue. Before I spend money on an investigator, I'd like to take all the steps I can. For the record, this guy still advertises and I believe he is a legitimate, if formally unlicensed worker. We have a labour dispute that the court can resolve, if I can get him there. He and I have spoken repeatedly since, but he believes he is entitled to the amount I have paid already for the 'leg work' he has done prior to beginning the job. @woozle wuzzle: I'm pretty confident he will pay up at least a significant portion once he realizes he's actually being sued. I do have his banking information on my returned cheque I paid him with. They just won't give me his address. @soylent pudding: How would a contract have protected me in this case? My signing an agreement to pay him wouldn't make him more inclined to refund my deposit. I do, however, have his signature on a quote indicating the amount paid in deposit. Genuinely, this is for just under $2000. Is it really not worth pursuing? Filing a claim costs $75. All I need is his address.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Man if the last few posters in this thread - and their responses - are any indications of what lawyers need to go through with their real life clients, then I'm glad I'm a prosecutor. Dude, the people who responded to you made several points. First, good luck finding the guy. That will take time. Second, going to court requires both time and effort, and the wherewithal to muddle through it without a lawyer. Third, even if you win, you probably won't be able to collect. He's not come corporation where you just mail in a copy of a judgment and get a check. You would have to attach a lien to his lovely car or something. Again, time and effort and wherewithal. Fourth, this is a life lesson and you should probably consider it a cheap (yes, $2k is cheap) one at that. $2000 is not worth the time and effort, even if you could collect your $2000.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Man if the last few posters in this thread - and their responses - are any indications of what lawyers need to go through with their real life clients, then I'm glad I'm a prosecutor. Not to mention half the time I try to structure my answers to give general information to anyone lurking the thread. Then we get yelled at for not focusing only on their problems. Mr.belowaverage, thanks for trying to define for us what the purpose of the thread is. If you want to complain about the free information people are volunteering, find another thread. Based on the additional information it sounds like you also have a dispute about whether your deposit is refundable. Without a contract it's going to be even more difficult to resolve this issue in court in court and I would not expect you to recoup from this guy sufficient expenses to cover your court costs. Back to general advice: If you're shelling out more than a grand protect yourself with a contract.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Dunno what the provincial court system is like in ON, but in BC he could file basically anything in response to a notice of civil claim (IE: I don't owe nobody nothin, gently caress you, gently caress this gay court, I'm out) and the matter would progress to a mandatory settlement conference or mediation, and then a trial. A one or two hour small claims trial is currently booking in a year to a year and a half out at the busiest registries. Presuming you were successful at trial or settled it early, you would then need to attach a charge to his personal property or tools, garnish wages or other monies owable to him, or apply for an order of seizure and sale and pay a sheriff to take some of his poo poo to sell. Assuming the best case scenario (ie: you can find and properly serve him, get default judgment, and he has some assets that can be garnished, seized, or charged -- which is a big if, the enforcement act in BC, for example, has carve-outs for tools, personal possessions, wages, and vehicles) you're looking at a couple months of work and a couple hundred bucks worth of fees. Worst case, he successfully defends the claim, or if not, drags it out for a year or two. None of the foregoing is legal advice or intended to be relied upon, but you begin to see why people are telling you to consider whether it's an amount you want to pursue. also button up the sass, if you don't want people telling you that you're dumb, access the free public resources that are easily googleable that will tell you the same things we've been telling you, and you won't have to publicly disclose and be made fun of for giving a bunch of cash to some guy you didn't know
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:The ones on the road? Sensors. We mainly just use diamond shaped ones at stop lights in my area. Are those ones a speed trap, do you know? I've never seen them in that configuration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:Not to mention half the time I try to structure my answers to give general information to anyone lurking the thread. Then we get yelled at for not focusing only on their problems. As a person who lurks this thread because I find legal stuff interesting, but will hopefully never find myself in legal trouble, I do appreciate it 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:I'm sure you guys are really proud about being able to point out I shouldn't have given the guy money, but I'm not asking for my dad to preach to me about a life lesson. If you want to soapbox about how much smarter you are and how you always verify a contractor's licence claims, check his insurance documents and reference the BBB and municipality, find another thread. 1) You're an idiot 2) People in southeast Ontario who have done the same stupid thing you did have had good luck recently with going to the media about shady contractors to shame them into doing the work/returning the deposit 3) What's with the sass? You hosed up pretty badly and people that do this for a living are giving you reasonable advice
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
edit for above: Congratulations on being last on the train to call me an idiot. I hope lots of lawyers, who make their living on people needing assistance, think of all their clients as idiots. I don't understand the need to criticize for a bad decision, instead of being constructive. If you can't help me with investigation, that's fine. Why are you even posting a reply? I'm not going to the media over 2 grand, I'm trying to take reasonable steps to file a reasonable claim. I am not sassing exactly, but bewildered by the need of every poster to critique my mistake, instead of offering help. I tried to write a sane reply to all the above posts but it's impossible. Obviously no one has any answers to offer, only tips on not being a dumbass, which is akin to asking about cream for a rash, and being told to wear long clothing in the woods. If anyone actually knows anything about skip tracing, I'd still love to hear it. If I am able to find this thief's address and file my claim, I'll let you know how it turns out; for better or for worse. mr.belowaverage fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
I called you dumb at the very end of my posts after detailing pretty thoroughly the procedural hurdles that make a 2 grand claim uneconomical, stop crying that people aren't being sufficiently helpful because you're not getting the answers you want
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 22:25
|
|