|
I’d rather people asked hypos. They are much better.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
Here's one. Just moved into a neighborhood with an HOA, have stuff like you can't park your mobile home in your driveway, no overnight parking for more than a few days in the event of guests, crap like that. Thing is, they don't seem to enforce the rules, at all. At least 2/3 of th people have a 3rd or 4th car on th street every night, a dude has his mobile home (bus-sized fucker) parked next to his house, ect. I don't plan on getting in a pissing match with a bunch of bored old people, but if I ever do, can I just point to all that stuff and tell them to pound sand? What happens when they just don't enforce the rules for a long period of time?* *Hypothetically sleepy.eyes fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Aug 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
That is not a hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
This isn't a direct answer but the way to proceed is to push everyone to dissolve the HOA before it has a chance to start doing anything
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
no story about a HOA ever ends with "and then I pointed out their hypocrisy and it all worked out great"
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
eke out posted:no story about a HOA ever ends with "and then I pointed out their hypocrisy and it all worked out great" goddamn truth
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Here's one. Just moved into a neighborhood with an HOA, have stuff like you can't park your mobile home in your driveway, no overnight parking for more than a few days in the event of guests, crap like that. Thing is, they don't seem to enforce the rules, at all. At least 2/3 of th people have a 3rd or 4th car on th street every night, a dude has his mobile home (bus-sized fucker) parked next to his house, ect. I don't plan on getting in a pissing match with a bunch of bored old people, but if I ever do, can I just point to all that stuff and tell them to pound sand? What happens when they just don't enforce the rules for a long period of time?* You must join the HOA board and become an HOA nazi now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
eke out posted:no story about a HOA ever ends with "and then I pointed out their hypocrisy and it all worked out great" baquerd posted:You must join the HOA board and become an HOA nazi now. A few years ago I had to literally arrange a coup against myself so that I could quit the board of the HOA I was on The short version: I'd been on the board as nominal president for about 7 years while two other people handled all the real work; they needed me as the "face" because I was a new resident in the neighborhood and thus the only person who wasn't actively hated by the various factions on the HOA; I agreed to do it because by being on the HOA I could keep them out of my own hair, the idea being that the HOA wasn't going to fine the HOA president. That strategy worked fine . . . for about 7 years. Then. One of those two active board members had to step down for health reasons and the other person sold their house in the neighborhood and moved out of state; when the second person moved away, we sent them a notice that we were going to replace them on the board; they never responded so after several months we appointed a replacement for them also. A few months after that they found out and came screaming back and demanding that they remain on the board after all, despite no longer owning a home in the neighborhood or living in the state. Turns out the HOA documents actually allowed this, even though they didn't own a home in the neighborhood, for *reasons*. The person we had appointed to replace them then withdrew in order to avoid drama (smart move). Unfortunately, due to various personal conflicts dating from before the dawn of time, this then-remaining two board members apart from myself could not agree on anything -- anything one of them agreed to, the other would reflexively disagree with. That created an impasse where we could not get unanimous agreement on even basic things like "let us hire someone to mow the grass" and left the board paralyzed. (Theoretically, we could have made decisions with 2/3rds majority, but that would just have created even more drama -- as a practical matter we needed universal agreement among the Board to get anything done). The landscaping in the common areas turned into a mess and I ended up having to do a lot of it myself for about a month. I didn't want to get between the two other board members if I could avoid it, though, because they were both acting in really bizarre and angry ways and I didn't want to wake up one morning with my tires slashed or something because I had Betrayed the Board. This also all left me deadlocked onto the Board -- if I just resigned, which is exactly what I wanted to do, then the only people on the board would be incapable of speaking to each other, and the Board wouldn't be able to act to meet the minimal functions it has to do every year like filing the taxes etc.. Everyone in the neighborhood came up to me and wanted to expel the occupying foreign agents, but nobody except me knew how (in order to get the necessary vote totals a lot of absentee homeowners had to be contacted, etc. and there were notice requirements and suchlike that nobody understood). I spent about two weeks very patiently explaining the HOA documents to everyone in the neighborhood ("here are the requirements for gathering proxy votes," etc.) in advance of the annual HoA meeting. Then the meeting arrived and there was all sorts of drama; the out-of-state board member participated by phone; there was pounding on the tables and shouts of "Order! Order!" ; there were Motions of No Confidence; there were angry shouts of 'You can't fire us, we quit! And I hope you're happy when your regime fees all get raised!" (The vote to expel was unanimous with one abstention, myself). End of the meeting I was able to resign and be replaced by someone else. They gave me a tie. A few months later the new board sent me an email about how my bushes and yard were not Up To Standard and I replied by citing the HoA bylaws back at them -- all the stuff they were sniping about is stuff that isn't actually against our rules. They haven't bothered me since. Good Times. sleepy.eyes posted:Here's one. Just moved into a neighborhood with an HOA, have stuff like you can't park your mobile home in your driveway, no overnight parking for more than a few days in the event of guests, crap like that. Thing is, they don't seem to enforce the rules, at all. At least 2/3 of th people have a 3rd or 4th car on th street every night, a dude has his mobile home (bus-sized fucker) parked next to his house, ect. I don't plan on getting in a pissing match with a bunch of bored old people, but if I ever do, can I just point to all that stuff and tell them to pound sand? What happens when they just don't enforce the rules for a long period of time?* The answer to this varies a lot depending on state law and the specific bylaws of your HoA. The practical answer is that anyone deeply involved with the HoA is probably insane and you will never win against them without putting in way more effort than any sane person would ever consider doing over their neighbor's grass height. On the other hand, if you're willing to blow a shitload on legal fees, if they're a small HoA they probably don't have the budget to match you; if they're a large HoA they might; either way it's not worth it. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Aug 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Alright, thanks for the answers. I haven't been contacted by them and I do take care of my place, so I don't foresee any issues, was just curious. The place my brother moved into they had a little package with "Here are the rules, we will eat you alive if you don't follow them". They gave me a "If you want to use the pool, get in touch and you'll have to pay a little extra. Welcome to the area, we guess." It was oddly low key.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Alright, thanks for the answers. I haven't been contacted by them and I do take care of my place, so I don't foresee any issues, was just curious. The place my brother moved into they had a little package with "Here are the rules, we will eat you alive if you don't follow them". They gave me a "If you want to use the pool, get in touch and you'll have to pay a little extra. Welcome to the area, we guess." It was oddly low key. That's what you want. "Good" HoA's are the ones that barely ever enforce the rules unless there's some common issue that actually needs to be dealt with (i.e., one resident has a gigantic hundred foot dead tree in his yard that's about to fall on the neighbor's houses).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Here's a few months old pseudohypo I posted that got overshadowed by other stuff and we never really got into:Javid posted:Curiosity question/hypothetical: In a case like the gorge fire last year where the perp was a minor and their identity is sealed, how does a party injured by the act sue for damages without that info? Can they just file against "defendant in case#xxx" referencing the former trial, or what? Does it all go through the court or does the perp ID get revealed to them along with a gag order about it, or am I not even close?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
In Trump’s hush agreements, why do they stipulate that the $1,000,000 are “liquidated damages” and not “penalties”. I understand the difference between them (ie: I’m not penalizing you for breaching the contract, I’ve just estimated, and you agree with my estimation, my damages to be a million bucks), but why does that matter legally? Is it so the judge can’t reduce the penalties as usurious or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:In Trump’s hush agreements, why do they stipulate that the $1,000,000 are “liquidated damages” and not “penalties”. A liquidated damages clause like that is a penalty clause. They're also rarely enforceable, but you have to go to court to litigate it away regardless. This is how Trump silences people. The contracts are laughably invalid, but Trump's lawyers will absolutely make you bear the cost of proving it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
Its a penalty if its a) an "agreed-upon" punishment for breaching the contract, b) has no relationship to the actual damages that would be suffered if the contract was breached. Penalty clauses are unenforceable. Its liquidated damages if a) its supposed to represent a relatively acceptable estimation of the damages that would be suffered if the contract were breached, and b) its difficult to pun down exactly what the damages would be if the contract were breached. Liquidated Damages clauses are enforceable. Example: Pyotr agrees to make a website page for Paul. Paul will pay Pyotr $100 to make the page. - a $1,000 penalty clause would be unenforceable, because if Paul pays Pyotr $100 and he doesn't make the page, then Paul's damages are easily calculated: $100. Likewise a liquidated damages provision of $400 would be unenforceable, because, again, his actual damages are exactly $100.'' Next: Joe hires Rasputin to run a website auction for an afternoon. He pays Rasputin $100 up front, and will pay 10% of the profits. Joe expects to earn approx. $500 profit. - a $1,000 penalty is still unenforceable, but a $700 LD clause might be enforceable, because its a rough estimate (maybe a little high) of the losses Joe might suffer if Rasputin breaches.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
Iirc The enforceability of liquidated damages clauses depends on which state law controls. Some states frown upon liquidated damages, so the bar is really high to enforce. There may be some states that consider them the same as penalties and ban them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The contracts are laughably invalid, but Trump's lawyers will absolutely make you bear the cost of proving it. See also: early termination fees, which are often drafted as illegal penalties rather than as legal liquidated damages (I’m looking at you, National Apartment Association form lease).
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
Demurrage is the most common form of liquidated damages in maritime law 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
Yeah, think of my explanation as a general concept, which has been twisted and modified by 51 different Court systems over abotu 200 years
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Let's say that someone quit Tesla a few years ago and his NDA expired. What kinds of internal drama / potential exploits / "musk is a shithead" things is that person allowed to post on the Internet before getting hit with a lawsuit anyway? Asking for a friend
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Its a penalty if its a) an "agreed-upon" punishment for breaching the contract, b) has no relationship to the actual damages that would be suffered if the contract was breached. this isn't really accurate at all. the key element to a penalty clause is that it compensates the breached party more than their damages. so something that is very closely related to the actual damages, but higher, is a penalty clause. something that has no real relationship to the damages but is likely to produce something in the ballpark or lower is fine. two examples: 1) i breach a loan agreement, that calls for me to pay you $100 per year for the next 10 years. the liquidated damages clause requires me to pay the full amount, right now - $1000 (if I breached next year, it would be $900, etc). this is obviously very closely tied to actual damages. 2) i breach the same loan agreement, the liquidated damages clause calls for me to pay $150, no matter what. this has no real relationship to actual damages. 1 is definitely a penalty clause (i spent a while briefing something along these lines  ). the reason why is the time value of money: $1000 now is always worth more than $100 a year for 10 years. so even though it's not super clear what damages should be, we know $1000 isn't it and will always be too high. striken as a penalty clause. 2 almost certainly gets upheld: it makes no effort to solve the time value of money problem but there's no real way to argue that, on the whole, it's going to overcompensate you even though there is one edge case (breach in the last year) where it does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this isn't really accurate at all. the key element to a penalty clause is that it compensates the breached party more than their damages. so something that is very closely related to the actual damages, but higher, is a penalty clause. something that has no real relationship to the damages but is likely to produce something in the ballpark or lower is fine. two examples: How do you decide on a discount rate? If it's the prevailing interest rate, what happens if it's negative at the time of the breach? Would it be upheld?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Hoshi posted:How do you decide on a discount rate? If it's the prevailing interest rate, what happens if it's negative at the time of the breach? Would it be upheld? Courts routinely uphold the treasury rate plus 0.5% as an acceptable discount rate on basically any type of loan. Even for loans that have much higher rates of interest so in reality that overcompensates the lender as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
I skipped the last 100 posts someone quote anything funny or lore related please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
What exactly are you arguing the difference is?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I skipped the last 100 posts someone quote anything funny or lore related please. Maybe you should stay awhile and listen
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:Maybe you should stay awhile and listen *skeleton listening to gramophone*
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
what, exactly, would the legal rationale be behind regulating Google searches? i've been seeing it brought up a bunch recently. obviously assuming that Google searches are curated by people and not just determined by metadata, of course
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
A 50S RAYGUN posted:what, exactly, would the legal rationale be behind regulating Google searches? i've been seeing it brought up a bunch recently. It's only being brought up because conservative bloggers are upset they're not considered news. This only becomes actual news because it was on a Lou Dobbs segment the president DVRed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It's only being brought up because conservative bloggers are upset they're not considered news. This only becomes actual news because it was on a Lou Dobbs segment the president DVRed. the only legal rationale at the moment is contained in the briefs that google's lawyers probably already have drafted lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
LolMr. Funny Pants posted:There's a lot of background with this so forgive me if it's long. VelociBacon posted:It's anxiety. Mr. Funny Pants posted:Thanks for the replies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
Go read that thread. The docs and med students dunk hard on bacon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:What exactly are you arguing the difference is? the standard you articulated just isn't related to the standard courts use. the examples you gave are reasonable enough. the standard i articulated is important if, say, you want to eliminate a make-whole on bonds where the deal lawyers were just a little too greedy for their own good
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
Hoooooly poo poo. Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Go read that thread. The docs and med students dunk hard on bacon. Seconded. Never ever loving give advice when you are nowhere near qualified, especially if it's life or death medical advice. That's maybe close to liability or criminal charge under certain circumstances (in my jurisdiction). Not that it matters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
Honestly the whole existence of "The Goon Doctor" as a forum seems like a problematic concept for anyone giving advice there; definitionally you can't do an in person assessment. But, then again, for similar reasons, the concept of giving legal advice online has its own similar issues, unless that advice is "talk to a lawyer in your area who works in the relevant field."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Honestly the whole existence of "The Goon Doctor" as a forum seems like a problematic concept for anyone giving advice there; definitionally you can't do an in person assessment. But, then again, for similar reasons, the concept of giving legal advice online has its own similar issues, unless that advice is "talk to a lawyer in your area who works in the relevant field." this is just your anxiety
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
Also the original er likely hosed up by sending him home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:this is just your anxiety 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Hoooooly poo poo. A joke post in the Trump thread just convinced a guy to buy fish antibiotics so he didn't have to go the Urgent Care
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Isn’t Amazon’s pet medication section full of people leaving reviews of antibiotics they purchased For Their Sick Pet, which is in no way related to the out-of-pocket expense of human-marketed ones?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
It's not funny and I've had to order fish antibiotics because of my copay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 01:50
|
|