|
Offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel is usually allowable. It's a little more controversial than most forms of collateral estoppel, but you can use a prior judgment that actually decided a question of fact or law against someone in a future civil lawsuit. So if you get convicted of murder and the defendants family sued you afterwards for damages, they can use the conviction (or plea agreement) to prove you did it. Unless there is something unusually unfair about it or other exceptions apply.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
joat mon posted:Different parties. Correct. But you get a pretty strong presumption. And if there is a guilty plea, unless it's an Alford plea, you usually have the defendant under oath on the record admitting to everything as part of the judge's acceptance of the plea. Which again is a strong presumption but certainly rebuttable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
If the state could keep re-trying people until they find a jury that will return a guilty verdict then there wouldn't be any point in having trials.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
I sold my car to a local dealership. No trade in or anything. The sale price was $8600. I have the contract with them stating all this. They needed to apply for a title transfer from my home state. They said I would get a check in the mail in a week or so. It's now been a month and a half with no check. The guy who I dealt with for the sale never once called me back despite at least 5 messages I left him. I eventually tried contacting the sales lady who dealt with my questions about the initial quote I was given over the phone. She got back to me quick with a response like "sorry about this, I'll get back to you asap" but then never did get back to me despite numerous attempts to reach her again. The thing is I'm not in a rush to get the money, even though I truly feel mislead by the amount of time they said it would take to get the check. But the issue is that no one will even get back to me saying "sorry it's taking longer than we thought for the title to transfer" which makes me think something is wrong I'm wondering if a letter to them from a lawyer would help get things done or at least get a response. This is the company: http://www.hudsonhyundai.com What's my move from here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Have you actually went down there in person to talk to the guy and say "hey where's my money?" Car salesmen are cheap and will postpone/push back things as long as possible. Also, yeah, you might need to lawyer up if they don't pony up the car or your money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Have you actually went down there in person to talk to the guy and say "hey where's my money?" The problem is I live about an hour from the dealership, and it costs something to get there since I have no car now, and I'd almost rather pay for a lawyer up front just to get the answer "remotely" rather than having an extremely frustrating and potentially wasted day. If it's in the $100-200 range at least. Which I guess now that I type it out seems low. Is it at all likely to get reimbursed for legal expenses for this if it ends up being more expensive? Is there a particular kind of lawyer I should seek out for this type of thing? a cat fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Send a letter, certified mail, demanding money 10 business days from receipt. Don't say anthing other than you have a contract ftom x day, you gave the car on y day, and havr recieved no money as of date of sending.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Does the contract say anything about attorney's fees?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Update: Ok I found a page on their site with a emails for all the managment, and I just CC'ed them all and the original dealer I dealt with and described my situation. I heard back from 3 people within an hour and am now confident I'm not getting scammed, paperwork is just held up somewhere. I guess I was just slowly building up paranoia since it increasingly felt like I was being avoided there. Thanks for the suggestions though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
A good old EECB getting results once again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Don't let up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Don't let up. Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
On the topic of Double Jeopardy, I was curious about something that I read in a book a few years ago. In the story, what happened was that the guy was on trial for a murder and for the defense his attorney demonstrated that the prosecution's theory of the crime was far enough off that the charges were technically inapplicable. IIRC, it was that the victim survived the initial murder attempt and instead when the killer disposed of his body (he was charged with murder for the former, and obstruction of justice for the latter). So what happened was that the charges were dropped because he demonstrably wasn't guilty of what he was charged with, and then was protected by double jeopardy rules because he had already been charged unsuccessfully for the acts he committed. I'm curious if this is remotely a thing on either side. If you are charged with a crime that you committed, can you mount a defense by showing that you did it in a different time and at a different place? Then does double jeopardy protect you from being charged for a different crime when the act has already been charged as a different offense. The latter seems pretty much to be the point of double jeopardy, but the former seems like a stretch, and the combination seems like full-on fictionlaw. Disclaimer: This is totally a hypothetical. I am not planning, nor do I ever foresee myself to plan, to murder a person with powers which render him immune to poison, then hope the police don't notice that the bloodspray at my dumpsite in the Vegas desert indicates a live victim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
I purchased and attended a VIP experience. I do not feel that I received what I paid for. This is the exact verbage of the description,save for the band name. I live in Kentucky. Meet and Greet with the band Individual photo with the band Early Entry into the venue Limited Edition Merchandise VIP host I received everything but the Meet and greet, in my opinion. The only interaction with the band was a group Q and A session. Can that be considered a meet and greet? Not everyone was permitted to ask a question. Thanks Edit I have contacted the company, they basically told me sorry that you didn't enjoy the experience but you're out of luck. joebuddah fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jun 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
joebuddah posted:I purchased and attended a VIP experience. I do not feel that I received what I paid for. This is the exact verbage of the description,save for the band name. I live in Kentucky. You got an individual picture with them, right? You met and greeted them. Sorry man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Yes I did receive the picture. I'm not some crazy person who thought that I would get to spend hours talking to the band. However when I done other VIP packages where there was a meet and greet, you lined up to have something signed got 1 -2 min of face time then got in line for a photo. And that was it. I have never been to a paid one where you the Meet and greet was a group Q and A
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Was the band Blink 182?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
No 30 seconds to mars
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
Probably Metallica. They have something like that going right now for an exorbitant amount of money and I can see someone being disappointed by paying that much for a QA session. The only reason I know this is I'm old and seeing Metallica when they come to the West coast and when I saw that package description and the price I laughed my rear end off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Your hypothetical has more to do with incompetent prosecution than the mechanics of double jeapordy. Fine tune your hypothetical any way you want, and if it hasn't already been decided somewhere, you'll have pro-defendant appellate courts finding DJ attached, and pro-state appellate courts finding the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Without going into too much detail, I got found not guilty on my DUI charge I got earlier this year. Badass lawyer was worth every penny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Santheb posted:Without going into too much detail, I got found not guilty on my DUI charge I got earlier this year. Congrats. I will tell you what I tell all my DUI clients win or lose: You have lost your right to drink and drive. You can do one or the other, but you have shown yourself not being able to judge when you've had enough (.12 is higher than I'd ever be comfortable driving at even factoring in error), so don't do them around the same time. Uber/Lyft would also be way cheaper than that lawyer. If you have any issues doing the above, you might actually have a problem with alcohol and should seek help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
nm posted:Congrats. I will tell you what I tell all my DUI clients win or lose: He laid it out pretty similarly. Uber it is for me from here on out. The watering hole is a $15 ride there and back. Don't want to have to go through all this again Thanks for the advice, much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
nm posted:Congrats. I will tell you what I tell all my DUI clients win or lose: You know what, this is pretty good. I'm going to start doing exactly the same. E: Err. Giving the same advice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
Location: USA TL;DR Question: Can a store that scans my ID incident to purchase apply for something I don't want at a 3rd party? Details: I got a letter saying I applied to Sprint for something and they needed more info to complete the application when I did not apply. Called Sprint and was told it was made via ID swipe at a brick and mortar store, they had no other info such as CC or a contact phone number. The only time I have ever been in a "Sprint" store was a Radio Shack going out of business a few months ago. I don't remember if I gave them my ID or not but I am going to assume since my credit report has 0 inquiries that this is where it happened. I was very clear that I was not interested in sprint services while in the store. I filled out my local PD's online form, but am curious if this is illegal. It seems like fraud to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Dude your poo poo is sold by everyone you ever talk to and you signed your life away by using any free service like google or facebook anyways. There's probably an opt-out on the marketing, but you'll never slay the hydra. Basically you agreed to something somewhere that allowed them to send you a pre-filled credit application. If you actually didn't, you'll end up as a part of a big class action lawsuit in 10 years and get $2.50 as your part of the settlement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Location: Wayne County, Michigan, USA TL;DR Question: How I separate households for SSI? My sister (35) lives with my family (wife, 2 kids), has for 20 years. "Mentally disabled" since she was a little kid, worked from age 18 until 6 years ago (business closed), got her on state Medicare 2 years ago and she has gone through a battery of tests and there is a strong medical case for her to get SSI disability. She has been living with us and we've always pooled our resources and since she hasn't had a job, I've been taking care of food and shelter. I've been told by non-lawyers familiar with SSI to take her name off bank accounts (done) and get her a bank account (need to), rent her bedroom to her and charge her the fair market value for food, shelter and utilities. Is that legal? If so, then why does it feel sketchy? We didn't do this years ago because we din't think she would qualify.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Fire Storm posted:Location: Wayne County, Michigan, USA It is my (non-lawyer) understanding that obtaining legal representation for your sister will greatly enhance your ability to secure SSI benefits for her if you have the means to do so. She would also likely be eligible for legal aid in many jurisdictions for a matter like this. Edit to say that anyone who specializes in obtaining SSI benefits will be able to specifically lay out all of the income and asset rules along with how they interact with living in a household with someone else. skeptic22 fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Legal aid likely won't come into it. Disability lawyers work on contingency so they essentially work for free until you win, and then they get a chunk of your back benefits retroactive to whenever the state decides you became disabled (possibly when her last employment ended). It's sufficiently lucrative that getting people disability is an entire practice area; so there are lawyers that just do that, specifically. There's no reason not to get one and they make the process enormously easier on you. Also if she has worked and paid into social security she probably qualifies for SSDI which is better than SSI. The lawyer will know this and get you the correct one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Javid posted:Also if she has worked and paid into social security she probably qualifies for SSDI which is better than SSI. The lawyer will know this and get you the correct one. This is key. SSDI is what people mean when they say 'disability'. You get a maintenance based on past income that you can no longer obtain due to whatever problem you have. SSI is a last-ditch thing to keep from starving to death. You have to have no or nearly no assets and no way to get any more before you qualify.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
General sorta question - are there situations where two parties can contract to relieve a third party of an existing obligation, if the third party did not sign the contract and may in fact not be aware it exists? The situation I have involves a debt that one party is responsible for and another party contracting with the creditor to shift obligation of the debt to themselves. I realize there may not be a hard and fast answer as to whether this would hold up legally. For reference I'm in Florida.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
I'm not actually even sure what you're trying to do Darlok. But I assume it's devious based off your racial choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I'm not actually even sure what you're trying to do Darlok. But I assume it's devious based off your racial choice. Not really actively trying to do something more like a hypothetical. I would think that barring unusual circumstances a non-party to a contract couldn't be obligated to do something because of the contract so I was wondering if they also could not be relieved of an obligation. To make up an example: I assume two people couldn't make an agreement between themselves that a third person owes them $10,000, but if person 3 already owes $10,000 to person 2 could person 1 agree to pay it on person 3's behalf without person 3 being aware or agreeing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Legally, I have no idea, but practically speaking, if you roll up to a creditor and say, "this $10,000 is to pay off Person 3's debt", 90% of them will just stop trying to collect the debt without asking questions, 9% will try to collect from Person 3 anyway, and maybe 1% will care if Person 3 knows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Legally, I have no idea, but practically speaking, if you roll up to a creditor and say, "this $10,000 is to pay off Person 3's debt", 90% of them will just stop trying to collect the debt without asking questions, 9% will try to collect from Person 3 anyway, and maybe 1% will care if Person 3 knows. Oh yeah I'm sure functionally it'd be fine I was just wondering if for a contract like that to be enforceable if Person 3 would have to have agreed somehow with the contract, or if there might be an assumption that because it's a benefit to Person 3 that their agreement is unnecessary. IANAL so I wasn't sure if there was some simple contracts law answer, and I didn't find much with google.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
If you wanted to get clever, you could probably offer to buy Person 3's debt from Person 2 at face value via some sort of financial instrument. This would only require Person 2's consent, if my understanding is correct. Then person 3 would (without having consented to it) owe you the money, allowing you to forgive the debt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
The Darlok posted:Not really actively trying to do something more like a hypothetical. I would think that barring unusual circumstances a non-party to a contract couldn't be obligated to do something because of the contract so I was wondering if they also could not be relieved of an obligation. To make up an example: I assume two people couldn't make an agreement between themselves that a third person owes them $10,000, but if person 3 already owes $10,000 to person 2 could person 1 agree to pay it on person 3's behalf without person 3 being aware or agreeing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
The Darlok posted:Oh yeah I'm sure functionally it'd be fine I was just wondering if for a contract like that to be enforceable if Person 3 would have to have agreed somehow with the contract, or if there might be an assumption that because it's a benefit to Person 3 that their agreement is unnecessary. IANAL so I wasn't sure if there was some simple contracts law answer, and I didn't find much with google. When's the paper due?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
A owes B money. B can assign the right to receive that money to C. A cannot be obligated to make payment to C unless the contract between A and B said B can require payment to a third party. A person cannot be obligated to act under a contract to which they are not a party. Does that help?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Third party beneficiaries are fine, but as HDD91 said third party obligors are not since they are not parties to the agreement. So if A agrees in a contract with B to pay C $10,000, though not a party to the contract C can sue A to enforce it. At least that's the case under civil law, called stipulation pour autrui. A and B can't set up an agreement between them that C owes A $10,000. A trust works similarly. The trust is set up between a grantor and a trustee, for the benefit of a third party who may or may not be a party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 12:23
|
|