|
EwokEntourage posted:Does the lease include any provisions regarding bed bugs? Some apartments make you disclaim any liability towards the apartment complex for bed bugs Let's say that the lease only speaks generally about pests, and says that the tenant shall be clean, report any infestation in writing, and cooperated with preparations. Tenant will be billed for rescheduling if he fails to prepare or allow access. Suppose there is a term "Also, Landlord reserves the right to charge the cost of treatment, eradication of infestation, and cleaning of infested areas to the resident." Say that is the last sentence in the paragraph about cooperation with pest control. Say there are terms that ll can terminate residency if tenatns actions contribute to infestation, his actions hinder treatment, ll determines that the property cannot be treated with tenant continuing to live on premises, or any non-compliance.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Now say them to an attorney
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Just move out and yell "sue me!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Hypothetically, the tenant is getting a referral from a friend who is a criminal defense attorney. Say tenant has worked as a paralegal and can do most of any document review himself and has many friends who can write a letter for him, but doesn't know many ll/t attys. and just wants a free consultation unless litigation ensues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
You can probably just google Indiana tenant lawyers or something similar, one of them probably provides free consultations and likely have dealt with bed bugs before As A guess, I don't think you're gonna get the landlord to pay the costs of cleaning your clothes. If the landlord takes prompt steps to fix the problem and the lease has a clause saying the landlord can charge the tenant EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Why would a person need twenty pairs of pants?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Why would a person need twenty pairs of pants? Tuesday mornings, man. We've all been there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Why would a person need twenty pairs of pants? Better question is by suit separate pants does he mean slacks? Or did he buy 20 suit pants without jackets?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Well he has four suits, so at that point his suit pants that are parts of a suit are either 1/6th or 1/5th of his total suit pants, let's not split hairs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Used to be in Court every day as support staff, so slacks or separates. Only needed to wear a suit when I sat in on a jury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
So you bought suit pants, as separates, to wear like slacks? Was it cheap then just buying slacks? I need to get some more slacks, so honestly curious. Or like did you buy one jacket separate and then like 3 of the same pants separate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
I wear slacks r suit pants every day at work, too. I have like six or seven pairs of pants, and that includes three suits. You have a pants problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Half of them are too big. Lost some weight and never got rid of the ones that don't fit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Why would a person need twenty pairs of pants? 7 suits with 2 pairs of pants (if you buy suits with only one pair of pants, you're dumb), few pairs of jeans, few pairs of khakis/pants to go with sport coats, one ot two pairs of mud pants. Not quite there, but I can see it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
ya'll are nuts. 20 pairs of pants is like 15 too many
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
I have a question about a phrase that was mentioned in a Futurama, one that dealt with copywrite or trademark. I guess the jurisdictions would be LA (where the show was made) or NYC (where the show was essentially set). The phrase was "We represent but are legally distinct from the lollipop guild". Does that phrase only exist for that one joke or is it something that gets legally invoked? If it's the latter, what exactly would it mean?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Sorry, this is the pantschat thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Who wears suit pants as every day pants that's what I don't get. But yea buy a bunch of suit separates if your a public defender or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Who wears suit pants as every day pants that's what I don't get. Shameful lawyers who don't go to court every day don't get this. (I am now a shameful lawyer who doesn't go to court. Kinda boring, but boring has its perks.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
nm posted:Shameful lawyers who don't go to court every day don't get this. Law is a shameful practice best done in a dimly lit office by a social reject still half drunk from lunch. So I understand why most would have difficulty with pants
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
I have a jury trial Monday. What magic words should I invoke to let the judge know I'm on her level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I have a jury trial Monday. What magic words should I invoke to let the judge know I'm on her level. Greetings fellow natural person. I am the Real Man Hot Dog Day #91: and will be appearing before your corporate fiction as my corporate fiction all caps HOT DOG DAY #91 sui juris in your Court of Admiralty. Here is my UCC-1 and you'll notice I'm wearing my second set of pants on my head. (omfg, you guys made me watch too many of those nuts-o videos and I think I'm getting good at it) Motronic fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
But I use the British title of nobility Esquire!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
pip pip cheerio wots all this then
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Who wears suit pants as every day pants that's what I don't get. Suit pants (and suits for that matter) are comfortable as hell if well tailored. If it wasn't for the tie and DC being a swamp, I'd be fine wearing a suit daily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:I have a question about a phrase that was mentioned in a Futurama, one that dealt with copywrite or trademark. I guess the jurisdictions would be LA (where the show was made) or NYC (where the show was essentially set). Lol the law is not like some magic black box where a few secret magic phrases will cause the system to do what you want, that's why the sovcit people are ridiculous. That phrase would mean exactly what you think it means. That they are a representative of the lollipop guild but are not the lollipop guild. It is neither copyright nor trademark, if anything it would be boilerplate contract. Such a serious answer for a joke. oh lawdy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
If McGuffins are illegal in state-A but completely unregulated in state-B and someone from state-B sends a McGuffin to someone in state-A and the authorities in state-A find out about it, could they prosecute both the sender and receiver or just the receiver?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
So can the federal government. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:So can the federal government. What if McGuffins are unregulated at the federal level? Only state-A has regulations regarding McGuffins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Probably depends on the wording of the law. Possession, probably not (without being creative). Importation (which is common in gun/switchblade cases, which i assume this is about), yes. If it is alive, it probably prohibits import and the feds probably do care as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
How would that work in practical terms? Would the sender just receive a notice to appear in court in state-A?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Another way to charge both would be as a conspiracy.Dead Reckoning posted:How would that work in practical terms? Would the sender just receive a notice to appear in court in state-A? Depends on how much they wanted sender: Extradition warrant plus call to sender's state bureau of investigation to coordinate an immediate pickup, or extradition warrant and just wait till sender gets stopped for speeding or something. joat mon fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Another way to charge both would be as a conspiracy. Would there be some sort of time limit on an extradition warrant ? People can go decades without a traffic violation or any interaction with LE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Would there be some sort of time limit on an extradition warrant ? People can go decades without a traffic violation or any interaction with LE. Generally speaking, arrest warrants don't expire once issued. And the interaction when the warrant is discovered and served would not be a "sign here and promise to appear" situation, it's a "handcuffs, go to jail immediately and you might eventually get a bond" situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Would there be some sort of time limit on an extradition warrant ? People can go decades without a traffic violation or any interaction with LE. No limit. Had a young Marine who went UA/AWOL in 1972 go back home, get a life, become a trucker, get pulled over for speeding in 1995, and end up in the brig as a forty-something PFC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:If McGuffins are illegal in state-A but completely unregulated in state-B and someone from state-B sends a McGuffin to someone in state-A and the authorities in state-A find out about it, could they prosecute both the sender and receiver or just the receiver?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:The concept you're looking for is "Interstate Extradition". Whether a state will actually go to the effort of doing it if they even find out you're breaking the law depends on their workload and what you're doing. Don't send loving high caps mags to California. Thanks! No need to send hi-caps to CA, there's plenty of them here already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Just the other side of the sovcit bullshit, I smiled quite a bit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM&sns=em
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Pennsylvania: I indicated (by email) my intention to renew a lease for another year back in December; after some back-and-forth with my (pretty terrible at her job IMO) leasing agent, I never signed and returned the lease renewal that she sent in early February. I've accepted a job in another state; am I on the hook for the property (which I don't have a lease for) or am I scot-free (despite written intent to renew). e: In the emails I say "we're going to stay for another year" in early January; she later indicates (in mid-February) that we need to sign the lease extension in order to be considered under lease; I had no communication with her from when she sent the lease extension until I notified her of our intent to leave the property at the end of our current lease. There's nothing in our lease that requires advance notice of departure and it's outlined that the lease lapses at the end of the period without manual renewal. e2: I've already heard back and the leasing agent has agreed that she made an oversight and is releasing us (the current lease runs through the end of the month, so I should be covered from my end) but I'm still curious if anyone wants to take a stab at which one of us has the legal advantage, even if it's not PA-specific. Cockblocktopus fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:41
|
|
