|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Don't start using big, legal sounding words. COMES NOW Hot Dog Day #91
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Woof Blitzer posted:COMES NOW Hot Dog Day #91 I have removed this from my pleadings. Along with WHEREAS, PREMISES CONSIDERED.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
hereinafter the aforementioned post
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Christ I hate lawyers. When I'm editing for colleagues, I remove the archaic pointless magic words. If they want them in, ask them to explain what it means.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Christ I hate lawyers. Nice try. But I didn't spend all that money in law school to just give that info out for free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Christ I hate lawyers. Same. Who needs 'em, it's mostly common sense and google right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Got a question about landlord/tenant poo poo here in Indiana: Our landlord is trying to make us sign a termination agreement with a non-disparagement clause in it. As far as I have researched, this is entirely illegal since the Consumer Review Freedom Act was signed into law. I have gone to the landlord's office and read him the body of the bill and told him I won't being signing poo poo until the clause is removed. That was about 6 days ago, and today they sent me an 'updated' agreement with nothing changed. The company who bought the place I'm living in is offering 500$ to anyone who moves out by May 1st. The leasing company, who is acting on the building owner's behalf, has told me that I can only get the 500$ if I sign the termination agreement. Since time is of the essence, and not getting that 500$ isn't exactly an option financially, would I be able to sign the agreement, write a negative and objective review, and not have to worry about the non disparagement clause being used to sue me? Even if they do take me to court, they wouldn't have a case because I'm protected by the CRFA, right? thanx gunes
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
You'll spend more in fees than $500 even if they unjustly sue you. Take $500, move, and don't poo poo talk them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Take $500, move, and don't poo poo talk them? Seriously. They're paying you five hundred bucks to shut up, take it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
The act, if it even applies, would only render the entire contract void, I'm not sure you'd get to keep the money. Also how much do you want to pay an attorney to defend you? Rhetorical question because it would be more than $500. Take the money and keep your mouth shut.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
The act, if it even applies, would only render the entire contract void, I'm not sure you'd get to keep the money. Also how much do you want to pay an attorney to defend you? Rhetorical question because it would be more than $500. Take the money and keep your mouth shut.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I have removed this from my pleadings. Along with WHEREAS, PREMISES CONSIDERED. Govern yourself accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Maybe offer to take the $500 AND request a written guarantee for the full return of your deposit, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I have removed this from my pleadings. Along with WHEREAS, PREMISES CONSIDERED. I work with an attorney who graduated from the esteemed halls of Valparaiso. You can guarantee that any examples of Old High Legalese in her pleadings are: 1) In caps. 2) Incomprehensible to the author. 3) "I use it because I saw it on another pleading that one time I stumbled into a Federal case." WHEREUPON, AND IN CONSIERATION OF THE FACTS RECITED IN APPENDIX A (INCOPORATED BY THIS INSTANT REFERENCE AS IF FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN)... ...get hosed lady. I'm all for legal writing, and I know lots of words, but come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
AlbieQuirky posted:Govern yourself accordingly. Bitchiest sign off ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
I am legit involved in a pi case in federal court where opposing counsel used bolded and underline text throughout the brief, and I should point out not at the same time, he alternated his use. Also multiple exclamation points and in one instance a double exclamation point. Law school doesn't train you for the most adequate way to humiliate a person like that in front of a judge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 22:06
|
|
xxEightxx posted:I am legit involved in a pi case in federal court where opposing counsel used bolded and underline text throughout the brief, and I should point out not at the same time, he alternated his use. Also multiple exclamation points and in one instance a double exclamation point. Well, now I have to know more.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
I didn't use them at first, but the partners kept telling me to add it back in, which I assume it why it continues to be used by a lot of people
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
I've got a bit of a background legal question, contract law, don't remember the assignation clauses but these were contracts between Canadian and US companies. In the early paragraphs, there'd sometimes be some language as to the contract becoming valid when one dollar was given to the customer from the service provider. (It's been a while, I might not remember accurately), These were multi-million dollar, so I never quite figured out the fuss about a single US dollar... Or if we ever actually paid it. What the gently caress was that about? Creating consideration?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I've got a bit of a background legal question, contract law, don't remember the assignation clauses but these were contracts between Canadian and US companies. Sounds like it. A lot of contracts will say like "for $10 and other valuable consideration" regardless of the total value of the contract just to prevent any challenges to consideration if it gets litigated
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Do people actually challenge dozen page contracts, reviewed by dozens of lawyers, on the basis of not meeting Introduction to Contract Laws requirements?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/30-january-2012/why-are-litigation-letters-often-so-dreadful/
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Do people actually challenge dozen page contracts, reviewed by dozens of lawyers, on the basis of not meeting Introduction to Contract Laws requirements? No, because they *always* include "for one dollar".
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Do people actually challenge dozen page contracts, reviewed by dozens of lawyers, on the basis of not meeting Introduction to Contract Laws requirements? When the poo poo hits the fan they will challenge anything they can, so yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Do people actually challenge dozen page contracts, reviewed by dozens of lawyers, on the basis of not meeting Introduction to Contract Laws requirements? Literally seen a national company lose on this issue - unenforceable due to lack of consideration. Have you ever seen a Federal Judge 'lol'? I have. It was beautiful. (The company in question had in house counsel draft all their contracts, too.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
It's a matter of public record, right? Name and shame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:I am legit involved in a pi case in federal court where opposing counsel used bolded and underline text throughout the brief, and I should point out not at the same time, he alternated his use. Also multiple exclamation points and in one instance a double exclamation point. See, I never try to humiliate opposing counsel no matter how big a dick or how useless they are: A: It doesn't score me any points with the judge, who will get pissed at my clownery in his court. The judge is a jurist too. They know already. B: It is uncollegial and will make me less popular in the field, because even bad lawyers have friends in the business. C: It doesn't score me any points with the client, who doesn't know his rear end from his elbow legally speaking. So as far as I'm concerned, I stick to my points and ignore that bullshit. Although I did once receive a motion that was so poorly written, I actually literally couldn't understand the contents, which I pointed out to the judge. I feel that was kind of a different situation though, and I also felt like a real dick later when it turned out the opposing counsel had fired their secretary (this was way out in the boonies) and so they'd probably written it themselves.... and they only had one arm. Yikes. Still settled heavily in my favour though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
I'm thinking of making this writeup ("a certain creative professional is a huge douchebag") public: http://imgur.com/a/xDjKV Under American law, would that give him cause to launch a defamation suit? How would that work, since I don't live in the states? (I've actually written several of these, but this is the first one writing up a person petty enough I'm actually somewhat concerned)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I'm thinking of making this writeup ("a certain creative professional is a huge douchebag") public: 1. He'd probably use your country's defamation laws, which are probably more helpful to him. 2. You have too much spare time. e: exploded mummy posted:It just keeps going For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is Ted Rall, and why does anyone still care? joat mon fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I'm thinking of making this writeup ("a certain creative professional is a huge douchebag") public: It just keeps going
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Looks like it's already public to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
You are really upset with Ted Rall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:Looks like it's already public to me. Not Empty quote. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. It costs money to defend a lawsuit, especially from abroad, even if the suit is baseless. It's trivially easy to sue you, get a default judgment, and ruin your life. Especially if you don't have the money to undo it. Again - even baseless suits can be successful and ruin your life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
joat mon posted:
lol seeing this stupid thing never fails to make me laugh, as does thinking that there are people who actually read it all
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Did no one ever teach that woman that brevity is the soul of wit? Jesus! http://i.imgur.com/CyFyMRL.jpg
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Did no one ever teach that woman that brevity is the soul of wit? Jesus! Fuckin lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Yeah I know the joke is that Atlas Shrugged is long and pointless but I've never actually subjected myself to the pap before. Sword-kun was all I could see as I skipped around and Juan was still droning on, repeating himself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Yeah I know the joke is that Atlas Shrugged is long and pointless but I've never actually subjected myself to the pap before. Sword-kun was all I could see as I skipped around and Juan was still droning on, repeating himself. You mean you haven't memorized the entirety of the John Galt monologue?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:You mean you haven't memorized the entirety of the John Galt monologue? I know, just put me against the wall now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It's a matter of public record, right? Name and shame. Hertz Rent-A-Car lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:29
|
|