|
Are dumb silly hypothetical questions allowed? My friend and I were joking about buying a house in a nice neighborhood with no HOA and deliberately making the house an eyesore (like painting it awful neon colors, lawn decorations in poor taste). We would then only agree to sell the house at a hugely inflated value. I can't tell if this would be legal, extortion, blackmail, or harassment. I imagine if you didn't have any intent to profit it would be legal. So uh... would that be legal? We aren't going to do this it was just a thought experiment and since neither of us are lawyers I thought I would ask here.
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
It is very hard to sell a house at an inflated value because the buyer cannot get a mortgage for such a thing. YOu may be unable to find a realtor to list it under such a scheme. Furthermore the carrying costs of the house would be high.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Even without an HOA you would probably run afoul of local/municipal regulations or even building code violations. You also wouldn't make any money and would in fact waste a huge shitload of it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Plus you wouldn't impact property values that much and no one would want your ugly rear end house.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It is very hard to sell a house at an inflated value because the buyer cannot get a mortgage for such a thing. YOu may be unable to find a realtor to list it under such a scheme. Oh yeah I forgot about that. When I bought my house I had to get it appraised first so that the bank would finance it. And just to reiterate, I know it's a bad financial idea. i just don't know if it's a criminal idea.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:Even without an HOA you would probably run afoul of local/municipal regulations or even building code violations. Yup. Most counties have code designed to prevent this kind of thing. The more rural the area, the less restrictions you'll face. But then the property values are lower and people won't give a poo poo. The higher the property values, the more restrictions you'll face. If local government wants to get rid of somebody, they can often grind them into submission.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Its not a crime.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
TheReverend posted:Are dumb silly hypothetical questions allowed? TheReverend posted:Oh yeah I forgot about that. When I bought my house I had to get it appraised first so that the bank would finance it. It is not a crime, or actionable in civil law to build an obnoxious house where there are no deed restrictions or other regulations prohibiting it. See, the "Smurf House" in Highland Park, Texas. Highland Park is the small city/neighborhood/community within the heart of Dallas proper where all the wealthiest of wealthy people live. Jerry Jones lives there, Bush W. lives there, etc. These people have this obnoxious house in a neighborhood chock full of palatial mansions. They tore down some ancient estate and the whole neighborhood went batshit when they put it up, apparently. Its still there today, and it really does look like a giant mushroom in the middle of the intersection. If you want some comparison, jump to google street view and go to the corner of Anderson and Preston rd. in Dallas. http://vpostrel.com/articles/this-bold-house
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:It looks like according to California law, the landlord cannot deduct for placement fees of any type. Well they already deducted from our security deposit, we got back less than 15% of what we put down.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Wicaeed posted:Well they already deducted from our security deposit, we got back less than 15% of what we put down. Yeah. But my angle is they might pull up enough poo poo to counterclaim for more than the remaining 15%. Maybe the facts in your case work out so that you should sue. I'm just warning you that it's not uncommon for a small claims plaintiff to end up owing money rather than getting any back. It's a risk to weigh.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
TheReverend posted:Are dumb silly hypothetical questions allowed? In many new subdivisions here in New Zealand, a developer who sells you the house will make you sign something that makes it illegal for you to do things like that. They also restrict the colours/materials you can paint your house/roof and make sure you keep your front garden tidy. quote:It gets a bit more complicated than that. We had a verbal agreement with the owners of the place (the ones we signed the lease with) that we could leave with no lease break fee if we found someone to rent the place, which we totally did. Nowhere in our lease is anything written about a placement fee being charged if we broke our lease. These were all terms that we agreed on with the owners, however in the middle of our move out process they signed a contract with a property management company. Have you talked to the property management company about this?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
TheReverend posted:Are dumb silly hypothetical questions allowed? No problem because we only give dumb, silly and hypothetical answers. TheReverend posted:My friend and I were joking about buying a house in a nice neighborhood with no HOA and deliberately making the house an eyesore (like painting it awful neon colors, lawn decorations in poor taste). We would then only agree to sell the house at a hugely inflated value. Extortion and blackmail are very specific crimes. Look them up on wikipedia. Harassment... sure, but it only matters if it's actionable harassment. For example, if you've been stalking someone and this is part of your overall process. There are some weird laws on the books with respect to stalking and bullying, so step lightly. Ilegal/unlawful - maybe. Check the local zoning codes and any restrictions in the title. Examples: 1) I once owned a house where the title itself said that the outside paint colors could only be changed with the permission of Mildred something. It was an old house and she was long gone. There was no home owner's association, but the title still had the restriction. A neighbor could have used it to be a pain if I decided to be an rear end in a top hat and paint the place weirdly. 2) I bought a house where there was no HOA because I would be parking a rather large sailboat in the drive. Thanks to a neighbor, I was visited by a zoning officer and we spent a while measuring distance from curb and other stuff. I had to shift the boat around a little to be within code. The city would have made things very bad for me if I continued to violate the zoning regulations. The neighbor threatened to sue me when the boat/eyesore didn't go away and I told her to get off my property. It was a bit of a dividing point because a few neighbors were scandalized and the others wanted to play on the boat. As for listing it at an insane price - why not? Selling at that price is a lot harder because most people/companies will want to get a loan that is secured by the property itself. Regardless, someone might pay the price. It's their problem, not yours. Also, if you get a loan to pay for the place then be careful of the bank's terms for foreclosure or causing the full amount to become due.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Wicaeed posted:There are some other items that were deducted from our security deposit that we don't feel should have been as well: I'm not an attorney, but some of those security deposit items seem like they fall under normal wear and tear which it looks like you shouldn't be charged for: http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml That may shift your thinking on whether it's worth to go forward to fight the $500 charge. Although you might want to start by contacting the management company or whoever and say that those items fall under normal wear and tear and shouldn't have been deducted. I wouldn't be surprised if unscrupulous property management companies just deduct those things from security deposits and people who don't know their rights never mention it. If you let them know you are aware of what should be deducted, they may give it back immediately to make you go away.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
gman14msu posted:I'm not an attorney, but some of those security deposit items seem like they fall under normal wear and tear which it looks like you shouldn't be charged for: I wonder how much they charged for light bulbs? Even if you go for the expensive energy saver ones, a light bulb costs only a dollar or so. When I move out of a flat I usually replace the more expensive energy saver ones with cheap 60c ones, since I bought the energy saver ones myself.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:I wonder how much they charged for light bulbs? They probably also charged for the labor to change them. Depending on the religion/nationality/etc, you could be hiring a small army to change it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
chemosh6969 posted:They probably also charged for the labor to change them. Depending on the religion/nationality/etc, you could be hiring a small army to change it. I see what you did there. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
I know this probably varies by state (We're in NC if it does), but I'm back at my local computer shop, and I noticed they had added to our standard disclaimer (Fees, taxes, privacy except by law, etc). Someone who doesn't work here anymore added this to the end of the disclaimer. Not only is it terribly written, but I don't think we can disclaimer this away, but I could be wrong: quote:You are bringing in your electronic device in to be repaired and restored back to proper using conditions. Understand that during the process of repairing your device there is always a risk of it being damaged beyond repair and we ARE NOT liable for any damage that may occur. We will do our best to restore your device back to functional condition but make no guarantees that it will be successful. In short: We aren't responsible for equipment failure during the normal course of equipment repair. (Which is pretty much how I'd rewrite that whole statement).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Gothmog1065 posted:I know this probably varies by state (We're in NC if it does), but I'm back at my local computer shop, and I noticed they had added to our standard disclaimer (Fees, taxes, privacy except by law, etc). A disclaimer isn't necessarily a magic button that protects you. You can disclaim anything you want, the question is how, and whether the disclaimer would be considered in a civil suit against you. Could you stand up in front of a judge and say "Yes, your honor, I took a dump in her computer case, and returned it to her, but we disclaimed all equipment failure; it said so right on the contract!" Also, if you try and disclaim too much, the court could conceivably throw the whole clause out as void for vagueness, or as a disclaimer of all duties under the contract, rendering the contract itself voidable for lack of consideration. Writing and comprehending the significance of legal clauses is an important part of what we do. Lay-persons who try to write their own contracts get in trouble. Also, there's alot going on in that sentence, including "assumption of risk", "warranties", "occurrences not constituting breach"... blarzgh fucked around with this message at 21:25 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:A disclaimer isn't necessarily a magic button that protects you. You can disclaim anything you want, the question is how, and whether the disclaimer would be considered in a civil suit against you. Could you stand up in front of a judge and say "Yes, your honor, I took a dump in her computer case, and returned it to her, but we disclaimed all equipment failure; it said so right on the contract!" Also, if you try and disclaim too much, the court could conceivably throw the whole clause out as void for vagueness, or as a disclaimer of all duties under the contract, rendering the contract itself voidable for lack of consideration. Should I just remove that entire paragraph and let it be? I know why they did it, but I don't know if it's even worth having it there. Most of the other paragraph is a basic x fees per month after x days, returned check charges, you're privacy is important unless you have CP type poo poo. I'm wondering if the whole line should just go away and we fight the "broken wile in shop" computers on a case by case basis.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
You'll probably need to talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction if you want a good answer.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the kind of thing we charge money for (because we can face professional liability for doing that).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:Yeah, that's the kind of thing we charge money for (because we can face professional liability for doing that).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Jury Duty question! Assume that in the voir dire the jurors are asked something along the lines of "Are any of you employed as a mechanic or have any of you taken vocational training to become a mechanic?" Person A does not stand up because he does not meet either of those two criteria and is eventually selected as a juror. Person A actually has an intimate knowledge of the workings of a car mechanic's shops as his father owns one, and having grown up around that environment, has an understanding or automobiles to mirror if not match the knowledge/skill of someone "employed" as a mechanic. Say the case has started and it turns out that the issue before the court has to do with the suggestions/advice of an unlicensed mechanic. Is Person A required (or should he) then inform the judge/attorneys of this information? Is it irrelevant at this point as Person A has been selected on the basis of the limited information that the attorneys do know about him, and the specifics of his background/experience don't matter? Tortilla Maker fucked around with this message at 11:12 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
Tortilla Maker posted:Jury Duty question! no, it was the lawyer's responsibility to ask better questions
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
Similar hypothetical: Drunk driving trial. The hypothetical details of the case aside (hypothetically, it was pretty loving ridiculous and hypothetically the hypothetical defendant should be locked up...in a hypothetical jail, of course), say each member of the jury is asked if they have prior DUI/DWI convictions, etc., and nobody has had any. Then, during deliberation, it comes out that one jury member HAS had a DUI, and stonewalls the entire jury on the basis that "I'm not convicting anyone of that" or something to that effect. Hypothetically, how should the other jury members handle this situation? And similarly, what if the other jury members finally relent and are like, "WELP, gently caress IT" and a person who was up for that jury but wasn't selected finds out what happened actually happened from another family member who DID end up on the jury, but didn't have the presence of mind to say, "Uhh, wtf?" Hypothetically. Because this was like 15 years ago and poo poo makes no difference now.  The actual story for curiosity's sake: guy is at a bar, supposedly his son (who only has a driver's permit) meets him at the bar to drive him home, under the drunk guy's supervision (apparently legal, that part wasn't contested, and this being Alaska, doesn't surprise me.) The story was: on the way home some icy conditions led to the boy putting the vehicle in a ditch, at which point he left his dad, walked the rest of the way home to call help, and while dad was waiting, police showed up, got him unstuck somehow, and then arrested him for DUI. So when the cops show up, find him in the ditch, alone, just him and the truck. They get him unstuck with a push or a tug or whatever, and ask the guy to move the vehicle off the road, which he does. They then catch on to the fact that he's drunk and arrest him. He goes to court, tries to claim entrapment because they asked him to move the vehicle. That doesn't work, so he appeals. Only at that point does the son's presence in any way, shape, or form enter in to the picture, and the claims that the son had, in fact, been driving become part of the testimony. Note: during the prior trial, and while being questioned by cops, the guy consistently says things like "I lost control" and "I turned the wheel this way or that" and "I slid into the ditch." Once the son enters the picture, suddenly the guy develops a habit of referring to groups of people that happen to include him as "I", or the same when recounting a story that happened to a person adjacent to him. Also, while the son is on the stand, while I don't remember the exact series of questions (there were a lot of objections until the prosecution finally found a way to the answer they wanted) it's said, almost verbatim, "So you're only here because the other thing didn't work? The entrapment thing?" "Yeah." It was a pretty obvious and flagrant case of perjury all over the place. I witnessed all this despite not actually ending up on the jury because that was the month I threw everyone at the courthouse for a loop by volunteering for extra jury duty and once I didn't get selected, I decided to just watch the case anyhow, it was only the one afternoon. I wasn't working right then, and it was something to do. That, undoubtedly, is the primary reason the defense booted me from the jury. However, my father was also on the jury (small town on an island), so I got to hear the inside scoop afterwards. Once deliberation began, everyone in there except one fine chap was in agreement that this poo poo was a slam dunk for the prosecution, there was just no two ways about it. Except this one guy who said, according to a jury member present, that he had a DUI/DWI record and simply flat out would never convict anyone of a DUI/DWI. It's like 12 Angry Men except the one guy is a retard. And while I realize that is, on some level, how the jury is SUPPOSED to work, to keep someone from being convicted of unjust laws and/or being convicted by a biased jury, fair trials, blah blah blah, the fact that the guy lied about this poo poo would be a big deal for everyone involved. Alternately, maybe he didn't actually have a DUI/DWI on his record, maybe he'd just been arrested for it and didn't get convicted? I still feel like that was some shady poo poo. Bad Munki fucked around with this message at 15:19 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
1) Potential Jurors are under oath during voire dire, and silence sufficient to constitute a denial is still perjury. If the juror did not admit to having been convicted of a DUI when asked directly whether anyone had been convicted of a DUI, then he perjured himself. The Jury should have brought this to the State's attention, and he should have been convicted of perjury. 2) Who the gently caress volunteers for jury duty?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
If a person were to have hypothetically signed a sub-contractor agreement several years ago with a non-compete clause, and then an employee agreement only a couple of years ago without a non-compete clause, would the original non-compete be voided? This hypothetical person is no longer a sub-contractor and hasn't been for longer than the non-compete lasted anyways. \/\/ That's basically what I was asking, just in verbose and awkward manner. kedo fucked around with this message at 15:51 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Seems to me the original non-compete expired; I don't understand what you're asking.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:2) Who the gently caress volunteers for jury duty? Yeah, that's about the response I got at the courthouse, too.  I literally had nothing else to do that month and was bored as hell. When I volunteered, they had no mechanism to handle it, so they were like, "Uhh...maybe...write something?" and they handed me a pad of yellow legal paper. So I just scribbled "I, so and so, volunteer for jury duty during the month of August, 1807" or whatever year it was. I guess that was good enough, because I got called in. At the very least, I thought I'd save someone else from being called in. And hey, I got that INCREDIBLY ENGROSSING story out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:1) Potential Jurors are under oath during voire dire, and silence sufficient to constitute a denial is still perjury. If the juror did not admit to having been convicted of a DUI when asked directly whether anyone had been convicted of a DUI, then he perjured himself. I'd volunteer if I thought I could. I get a paid day off work that doesn't not use any of my normal PTO, and being a non-criminal citizen who is not in a legal profession courtroom stuff is intersting. I'd be glad to take days off with pay to go sit and participate.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:I'd volunteer if I thought I could. I get a paid day off work that doesn't not use any of my normal PTO, and being a non-criminal citizen who is not in a legal profession courtroom stuff is interesting. I'd be glad to take days off with pay to go sit and participate. Courts are open to the public. You can go sit in and watch any proceeding you'd like (unless there is some gag order or something which is unbelievably rare. When you walk in to the court room, and sit down in the gallery, the bailiff may come ask you what you are in there for (they will be referring to which item on the docket you are there for). You are free to tell them, "I'm just observing." and enjoy the show. You can usually find a Court's docket online, and see what time certain cases will be heard on a given day. The docket entry will tell you what is 'before' the court, whether it be a motion hearing, or an evidentiary hearing, or a trial.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Yep, that's how I watched the DUI case I got booted from. And for what it's worth, if I HAD been in the deliberation room, I definitely would have made a stink about that guy's actions.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
kedo posted:If a person were to have hypothetically signed a sub-contractor agreement several years ago with a non-compete clause, and then an employee agreement only a couple of years ago without a non-compete clause, would the original non-compete be voided? This hypothetical person is no longer a sub-contractor and hasn't been for longer than the non-compete lasted anyways. Plus, different states have different laws relating to non-competes - your state may not even permit enforcement of non-competes against subcontractors and the first covenant was void anyways. Then again, maybe it does, and it wasn't. I would say generally that an employment contract which supplants a previous contract for labor would generally invalidate the first non-compete. However, without reading the text of the first non-compete, and the text of the second employment contract, and without being licensed in the relevant state, and without having litigation experience relating to the enforcement of non-competes in that state, its not possible to give you an accurate appraisal of your situation. If there is a clause in the second contract which revives, incorporates, or imputes the terms of the first, you wouldn't know it, and the non-compete could still be in effect. The employment contract may have assumed all alienable rights of the prior agreement, including the covenant not to compete. Depending on how valuable the ability to engage in (activity sought to be prohibited by non-compete) is to you, consulting a local attorney is your best bet. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 17:07 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Courts are open to the public. You can go sit in and watch any proceeding you'd like (unless there is some gag order or something which is unbelievably rare. When you walk in to the court room, and sit down in the gallery, the bailiff may come ask you what you are in there for (they will be referring to which item on the docket you are there for). You are free to tell them, "I'm just observing." and enjoy the show. I know, but I don't get an extra paid day off to be a member of the viewing public. I do if I get a jury summons.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
I'd totally volunteer to do jury duty like one week a month or something because as a federal employee, I get paid for jury duty, and I really could use something to take a break from work.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
I doubt your employees would want to pay you if it was voluntary.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I doubt your employees would want to pay you if it was voluntary. I doubt my employees would want to pay me for anything. In any event, I'd be surprised if most places would bother to look any further when you tell your supervisor "Yo dawg, I got the JD this month."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
So this popped up over in the MMO thread, and it has me quite interested.... Unfortunately my LEXIS access was cut after graduation so I can't actually look up any type of cases (INAL anyway). It's related to trademarks on guild names. Some of them actually do have registered trademarks, but they're listed under "computer services". From digging around in the public CFR stuff and whatnot all of that is dependent upon commerce. So if someone isn't actually engaging in commerce, they they aren't actually proving any type of "service" are they? For example "Bob's internet forum" registers as a trademark, but it's not at all related to any type of commerce. So is Bob's trademark still valid? Like at trial, could a lawyer undermine/question whether there was a service in the first place (I was thinking you can't defame someone with a true statement kind of thing). In these types of disputes, do civil law principles apply? Like if Bob's forum isn't making any kind of money (because they're not actually engaged in commerce) then there's no type of actual damages to pursue right? This isn't too important, but something I was curious about.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
UrielX posted:So this popped up over in the MMO thread, and it has me quite interested.... Unfortunately my LEXIS access was cut after graduation so I can't actually look up any type of cases (INAL anyway). IANAL but think about non-commercial organziations that I feel it is safe to say have trademarked names. Shriners, Red Cross, Goodwill, Salvation Army,religious organizations? I'm just spitballing, but I don't think engaging in commerce is required to have a trademark. You can make a simple argument for a guild providing services to members. Maintaining communication services like ventrillo, organization and coordination of membership activities, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
jassi007 posted:IANAL but think about non-commercial organziations that I feel it is safe to say have trademarked names. Shriners, Red Cross, Goodwill, Salvation Army,religious organizations? I'm just spitballing, but I don't think engaging in commerce is required to have a trademark. You can make a simple argument for a guild providing services to members. Maintaining communication services like ventrillo, organization and coordination of membership activities, etc. All of those organizations do actually engage in some kind of "economic activity" though. While it's not for profit, it's an exchange of donations into some form of commodity. Money to healthcare, money to food,etc. So I would say all of those examples are still linked to commerce, whereas the vast majority of online gaming guilds aren't.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:36
|
|