|
A state probably could generically protect linked in or social media activity, but I would be stunned if any do. Like, even Montana or New Jersey or California probably don't. And sure, the NLRB/labor union overlay would change things, but that has nothing to do with it being linked in and everything to do with the employer attempting to prevent collective action. There's nothing in the story to support that theory.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Arcturas posted:A state probably could generically protect linked in or social media activity, but I would be stunned if any do. Like, even Montana or New Jersey or California probably don't. The point I was trying to make, poorly, is that employment issues with workplace policy are very individualized claims and what relief may be available is very fact dependent. This question is generic to the point of being unanswerable with any confidence because integral information is missing
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
nm posted:Yeah, call chase and/or your insurance so they can tell them to gently caress off. I got an email back from Budget saying they were sorry for attempting to charge me and the charge wont go through.  I have to wonder how many people per year they send these letters to for bullshit charges and how many capitulate and just pay them. I suppose its really just a low / zero cost scam and an easy way to pad their books.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
So to expand car rental BS: Rental companies can also try to charge for "loss of use," where for every day the car is off the lot getting fixed, you pay what they theoretically lost in rental income for the car. I understand that often you can fight this and they'll cave just because they don't want to waste time fighting (or risk case precedent against them), but some states actually permit that charge even if their lot is full of equivalent cars not being rented. My understanding is that this is a function of the contract you agreed to, rather than actual damages they suffered (found it here: https://cases.justia.com/colorado/supreme-court/10sc159.pdf?ts=1396114960, though it looks like they're TRYING to introduce a law limiting this). What's to stop them from saying, "We'll charge you $1,000,000 per day for every tiny scratch?" I understand that the operating term here is reasonable, but who would consider "reasonable loss of use" to be anything more than $0.00/day when the rental company still has equivalent cars on the lot? I would expect that they would have to have 0 equivalent cars available and at least 1 customer asking for an equivalent car. And then how do you even determine what's reasonable, since most rental agencies use variable demand-based pricing? Absent a law specifically preventing this exact thing, what's the legal rationale for this? Aren't there existing legal constructs that generally limit recovery to actual damages, regardless of contractual agreements? DaveSauce fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Feb 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 15:29
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:So to expand car rental BS: There is a contract doctrine that prohibits "penalty clauses". A penalty clause is a clause that sets damages at an amount that is clearly far above the actual damages to the other side, and they will not be enforced. So the $1m scratch penalty would be unenforceable. The "loss of use" damages would be justified as "liquidated damages" - basically, a clause that fixes a reasonable measure of damages ahead of time so that nobody has to spend time litigating the issue. These are permitted if they are a reasonable approximation of what damages might be, looked at from the time of the contract, and are enforceable even if they exceed the actual damages in that particular instance. So you could justify a "loss of use" clause on the grounds that it is reasonable to expect a car company to suffer some damages from being unable to rent a car for some time (as renting cars is their entire business), and so if you fix a specific penalty per day for that ahead of time then it is still enforceable even if in a particular situation it overcompensates the company. So that's where the "reasonable" comes in. It doesn't need to be reasonable at the time of the breach, it needs to be reasonable at the time you signed the contract. The whole theory behind this (and a lot of contract law) is that lawyers and litigation is expensive so people should be allowed to contract in such a way as to minimize legal costs down the road.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:So to expand car rental BS: Off the top of my head, the actual calculation of a loss of use of a particular rental vehicle in a fleet of thousands across the country is cumbersome and not worth the accounting expense for a few hundred dollars. So using quasi-liquidated damages to calculate it is an economical way to decide. I’m not saying I agree, just giving a rationale. Looking at a couple of cases where this is permitted, the courts say that any aggrieved party is entitled to loss of use as an element of damages. It doesn’t matter whether they incurred a rental to replace it—the loss is compensable. The rental value is a benchmark for what is reasonable. They aren’t equivalent, just that RV is a good indicator of what the loss of use should be valued at. Keep in mind this principle extends beyond rental car companies. If your car (or boat or house) is damaged and you can’t use it while it gets fixed, that’s a real loss to you. The person who wrecked it has to pay you for loss of use, too. So you can say “hey I was able to manage without actually renting a replacement, but I still wasn’t able to use my property because of someone else’s negligence. Had I rented a replacement this is what it would have cost, so that’s a reasonable calculation of my loss of use claim.” Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Feb 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The "loss of use" damages would be justified as "liquidated damages" [...] looked at from the time of the contract, and are enforceable even if they exceed the actual damages in that particular instance. Interesting, I was vaguely aware of the concept of liquidated damages, but I was under the impression that it still had to be reasonable and actual. So in my head, it was enforceable in lieu of calculating actual damages, but NOT enforceable if the damages didn't actually exist. Phil Moscowitz posted:Keep in mind this principle extends beyond rental car companies. If your car (or boat or house) is damaged and you can’t use it while it gets fixed, that’s a real loss to you. The person who wrecked it has to pay you for loss of use, too. So you can say “hey I was able to manage without actually renting a replacement, but I still wasn’t able to use my property because of someone else’s negligence. Had I rented a replacement this is what it would have cost, so that’s a reasonable calculation of my loss of use claim.” Also interesting... this literally just happened to me. Got hit (other driver at fault), and my car took like 8 days in the shop. But we had just bought another car, and hadn't sold the old one yet, so I didn't need a rental. Would this mean that I would be justified in submitting a claim with the other party's insurance for loss of use? Way too much trouble at this point, but curious for future reference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
I got hit by a car on my bike by someone without insurance. They are asking me to give them a General Release from the Iowa DOT so they can get their license back and get a job and pay me back the money they owe. The document looks like it gives up any legal avenue to get what they owe though. Can we make an agreement on what they owe then give them the release or would the release negate the agreement? I want this person to go make money so they can pay me but I don't want to give up any leverage I have to get them to pay. "GENERAL RELEASE For valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned does hereby release and forever discharge _____________________________________________ from all claims, causes of action, and demands, whatsoever, the undersigned now has or hereafter may have on account of damage, loss or injury resulting from the motor vehicle accident which occurred on or about __________________________, at or near (Month/Day/Year) __________________________________, Iowa. " Wastid fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Feb 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Wastid posted:I got hit by a car on my bike by someone without insurance. They are asking me to give them a General Release from the Iowa DOT so they can get their license back and get a job and pay me back the money they owe. The document looks like it gives up any legal avenue to get what they owe though. Can we make an agreement on what they owe then give them the release or would the release negate the agreement? I want this person to go make money so they can pay me but I don't want to give up any leverage I have to get them to pay. What does your lawyer say? When my girlfriend was hit on her bike by a driver, getting a lawyer was the best thing she did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
I'm not a lawyer and yeah, you should actually talk to one, and I am not a lawyer, in fact I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but as a lay person reading that, it sure seems to indicate that whatever you think you're owed, signing that would be saying "Nah, we're good" I mean, you mention "the money they owe" and the thing specifically says it's discharging any current or future damages owed. So like, you know, the opposite of what you want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:Interesting, I was vaguely aware of the concept of liquidated damages, but I was under the impression that it still had to be reasonable and actual. So in my head, it was enforceable in lieu of calculating actual damages, but NOT enforceable if the damages didn't actually exist. basically, that rule wouldn't work because then you always need to calculate damages at the time of the contract breach to compare to the liquidated damages (and litigate over that issue) so you haven't saved any money on legal fees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
Wastid posted:I got hit by a car on my bike by someone without insurance. They are asking me to give them a General Release from the Iowa DOT so they can get their license back and get a job and pay me back the money they owe. The document looks like it gives up any legal avenue to get what they owe though. Can we make an agreement on what they owe then give them the release or would the release negate the agreement? I want this person to go make money so they can pay me but I don't want to give up any leverage I have to get them to pay. lol you are getting taken for a loving ride it is common in a settlement agreement that they agree to pay you money and you give them a release that is conditioned on them actually paying you the money you don't sign the release first and then ask for money
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:basically, that rule wouldn't work because then you always need to calculate damages at the time of the contract breach to compare to the liquidated damages (and litigate over that issue) so you haven't saved any money on legal fees. I was thinking that there's a difference between calculating damages versus determining whether or not damages even exist to be calculated. But to your point, in the case of the rental car, by the time you determine whether or not actual damages exist, you're already 90% of the way to calculating what those damages are. Wastid posted:I got hit by a car on my bike by someone without insurance. They are asking me to give them a General Release from the Iowa DOT so they can get their license back and get a job and pay me back the money they owe. The document looks like it gives up any legal avenue to get what they owe though. Can we make an agreement on what they owe then give them the release or would the release negate the agreement? I want this person to go make money so they can pay me but I don't want to give up any leverage I have to get them to pay. Yeah dude, don't sign that until you get paid. It literally says in the text that you're acknowledging receipt of "valuable consideration" (payment/compensation) by signing it, and then subsequently you're waiving the right to ANY future compensation from this incident. Meaning, if you sign it now, it may as well say, "I was hit by someone without insurance and all I got was this lousy release form." I had to look this up because it sounds crazy, but looks like Iowa does in fact allow a release. But they allow other ways for the person to get their license back: https://iowadot.gov/mvd/driverslicense/suspensions-and-revocations#295011089-financial-responsibility-after-an-accident The one you're probably most interested in is an agreed upon payment plan. You really ought to get a lawyer here if they can't pay right away. DaveSauce fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Feb 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
Wastid posted:I got hit by a car on my bike by someone without insurance. They are asking me to give them a General Release from the Iowa DOT so they can get their license back and get a job and pay me back the money they owe. The document looks like it gives up any legal avenue to get what they owe though. Can we make an agreement on what they owe then give them the release or would the release negate the agreement? I want this person to go make money so they can pay me but I don't want to give up any leverage I have to get them to pay. NOT LEGAL ADVICE CONSULT A LAWYER IN YOUR JURISDICTION➡️➡️Yeah don’t sign anything without money in your hand. Also at a minimum where it says “for valuable consideration” it should say “for $XXXX paid by [dude] to [you]” and also that you are allowed to sue them if they fail to pay w/in so many days, including your legal fees. Do you have car insurance? If so you may be covered under UIM assuming you have that coverage, and you can make a claim against your insurance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
Ok yeah that's what I thought it was saying but it just seems so stupid to ask me to do that I thought I was maybe missing something. I shot an email to a law firm to see what the best way to do this is and I never thought about my car insurance since I was on my bike but I'll call them too. Gracias for the advice thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
~hypothetical~ My friend gifts me $1 million, and plans to declare the gift when he files his tax return like you’re supposed to. Later in the same tax year, I decide to run for federal office and “self” fund using the $1 million my friend gave me. Is this allowed or is it a violation of campaign finance law? Is it different if he gives me the gift after vs. before I become a candidate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:~hypothetical~ There is a look-back period. Not all are terribly well defined (states) and I'm not sure how federal is defined but yeah.....it's not "one weird trick". In PA it's amorphous, but the period depends on the size of the "gift".
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:~hypothetical~ Depends on whether the FEC has started becoming functional again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Depends on whether the FEC has started becoming functional again. Yeah I knew this was the actual answer but one can hope
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
Posted in a Facebook group in my town, for a rental agreement: Is this crazy or is it normal?  quote:25. Non-Disparagement / Representations
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Posted in a Facebook group in my town, for a rental agreement: There's some interesting backstory and/or mental illness behind that one
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
Regarding the rental car loss of use: consider that the rental car company, knowing a certain variable number of cars in its fleet will be unavailable every day due to being in the shop for repairs, has to purchase and own more cars: and in order to not have customers show up expecting a car and not having a car for them, they likely have to own enough cars that they can account for above-average days. On that basis, the rental car company could reasonably distribute its costs in terms of extra cars evenly on a per-diem rate to every customer that caused damage that resulted in one or more days of unavailability of a car. Of course, this rapidly becomes horribly complicated by a bunch of factors, but my point is that it's kind of fair for the company to consider those costs as applicable even if, in any given case, they have extra cars on the lot that day (above and beyond that "margin to account for temporary unavailable cars" factor). But, on the other hand: the very fact that this is such a customary and usual cost of running a car rental business implies that gently caress you, car rental companies, just distribute your costs to all your customers, you're already hitting people up for dent repairs on probably drat near brand-new cars at retail rates probably far more than you actually pay given you're supplying constant work to some local shop and they're probably giving you a discount, and honestly a few tiny scratches and poo poo are just the ordinary wear and tear of driving a car on the road and you shouldn't even be bothering to repair that poo poo anyway, no private owner would get a whole quarter panel repainted every time they got a scratch in the parking lot and neither should you. And then on the gripping hand: that's why you decline their bullshit insurance and use your own insurance company anyway, just let your insurer work it out and they'll probably call the rental company on their nonsense in a much more aggressively lawyerized way than you will anyhoo. Yeah?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:39
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Posted in a Facebook group in my town, for a rental agreement: Better yet, is this actually enforceable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
I think there's a loophole that let's a friend post on your behalf? gently caress landlords and always post about their lovely slumlord behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Looks like a penalty clause designed to discourage people honestly discussing their experiences with renting. I doubt it's enforceable, though I am not familiar enough with state law where it was written to say for sure. Some parts might be enforceable, but specifically I do not think the liquidated damages portion is gonna fly. Kawasaki Nun fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Feb 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
Poor and rich alike are forbidden from sleeping under bridges
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Posted in a Facebook group in my town, for a rental agreement: that means that the landlord has gotten some hella bad reviews, likely justified, and wants to make sure nobody else can post online about how many roaches are in the place who cares if it's enforceable, the landlord is telling you that his property is so terrible that he needs to threaten people to not tell you how awful it is, you don't wanna live there even if it's removed
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
what's the legal issues associated with owning a right-side drive vehicle in America? I want one of the three wheeled trucks from Totoro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:what's the legal issues associated with owning a right-side drive vehicle in America? I want one of the three wheeled trucks from Totoro. None of the folks in this thread about importing vehicles from Japan have had any issues specifically about them being right-hand drive vehicles; however, you should understand that it's unquestionably illegal to import a vehicle of less than 25 years since date of manufacture (to the month) that is not an exact match of a make/model/year car sold here in the US (and therefore unambiguously was tested and passed US safety standards), unless that vehicle is exclusively off of public roads. The federal government has no sense of humor on this point, and has seized and crushed very expensive imported cars in the past when people have tried to skirt the rules, such as in particular with Skylines. Also you will struggle to register any imported vehicle in California, because CARB insists on doing some expensive testing on it which you will have to pay for. Nobody in that thread has mentioned any sort of liability issue though. Certain insurers are willing to insure these cars once they've been properly and legally imported and registered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:what's the legal issues associated with owning a right-side drive vehicle in America? I want one of the three wheeled trucks from Totoro. There shouldn't be any issues owning a right side car, some rural mail carriers use one for delivering mail when they don't get a mail car to use for the route. Usually though it's some kind of Jeep so there is a US equivalent. CongoJack fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Feb 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 13:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:None of the folks in this thread about importing vehicles from Japan have had any issues specifically about them being right-hand drive vehicles; however, you should understand that it's unquestionably illegal to import a vehicle of less than 25 years since date of manufacture (to the month) that is not an exact match of a make/model/year car sold here in the US (and therefore unambiguously was tested and passed US safety standards), unless that vehicle is exclusively off of public roads. The federal government has no sense of humor on this point, and has seized and crushed very expensive imported cars in the past when people have tried to skirt the rules, such as in particular with Skylines. CongoJack posted:There shouldn't be any issues owning a right side car, some rural mail carriers use one for delivering mail when they don't get a mail car to use for the route. Usually though it's some kind of Jeep so there is a US equivalent. Thanks friends! I am in the process of pouring over that thread as we speak, and deffo familiar with the 25 year law. if I can't get something with a left hand drive to take on roads (i'm bad at driving) there's a chance the family might be interested in using it to move fallen lumber in some land they own up north.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
CongoJack posted:There shouldn't be any issues owning a right side car, some rural mail carriers use one for delivering mail when they don't get a mail car to use for the route. Usually though it's some kind of Jeep so there is a US equivalent. And I've seen these things driven by private owners after they're retired and auctioned off by the post office, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:And I've seen these things driven by private owners after they're retired and auctioned off by the post office, too. And then they do horrible things like this to them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-AFtvDPOoQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
FAT CURES MUSCLES posted:And then they do horrible things like this to them: Reported for posting gore videos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
A fun hypothetical: If Bloomberg signs the contract Warren drafted for him, does that What would be the implications of running against your own lawyer in an election? Or running against your client?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
I don’t know if this varies by state so for the purposes of the hypothetical this is in Illinois. Company A needs some kind of government decision for their business and Mayor B asks for a bribe before he’ll approve it. Company A pays the bribe and gets their favorable decision. Mayor B has done something against the law, but has Company A? Does this vary based on whether the thing Company A wants is vital to their business? Like if Mayor B asks for a bribe to get an operating license vs if he asks for a bribe to approve a tax subsidy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Bribery is usually written to include both sides of the transaction
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Bribery is usually written to include both sides of the transaction How does that work logistically? Are both parties charged together and tried together? Or are parts separate (due to the potential for varying degrees of responsibility, like one side initiating the bribe, or the other maybe not clear that it's a bribe)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:How does that work logistically? Are both parties charged together and tried together? Or are parts separate (due to the potential for varying degrees of responsibility, like one side initiating the bribe, or the other maybe not clear that it's a bribe)? The prosecutors whom post here can answer that Often they are sting operations so the one side is the FBI for example
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I don’t know if this varies by state so for the purposes of the hypothetical this is in Illinois. paying a bribe is illegal. in fact, Company A has committed a united states crime even if this hypothetical is in a foreign country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 17:09
|
|