|
the $1 lease to Bob for 99 years is an issue unto itself. A contract (in this case, a lease) is not enforceable if there is not sufficient consideration. In other words, if I contract to sell you a lawnmowed for 99 cents, but its worth $100.00, then even though everyone signed, the contract is still not enforceable because 99 cents is not sufficient consideration for the lawnmower. Thats not to say every contract must be within 99% of market value or some other bright line test - even extreme bargains, and patently unfair contracts are still enforceable - but where the consideration is so nominal as to render the transaction essentially a Gift from one party to another, then no contract was ever really made.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Leases for nominal rent can be enforceable in some jurisdictions. also be careful applying normal commercial contract rules to leases. They did not develop from the same history of law and have many different aspects including state regulation. In fact I personally would not call a lease a contract as it is misleading. But anyway. Also a lease for no rent would be a license. Depending on the language it may even be some other land conveyance of an estate. euphronius fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Dec 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Nice try, officer.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Leases for nominal rent can be enforceable in some jurisdictions. But Leases are contracts - they're an agreement to exchange something of value for something else of value. They're enforced as contracts, subject to the requirements of contracts to be enforceable, have the elements of a contract, are interpreted as contracts, subject to parole evidence rules, statute of frauds, etc. Additional state-by-state requirements for the enforceability of lease contracts don't change the nature of the thing, just make it more complicated. And one of the elements of a license, I think, is a particular purpose for the entry onto land. "General possession and the right to exclude others from possession" are not a particular, limited purpose - a licensee cannot exclude others from property. So I don't think its a license, I think its an unconscionable/unenforceable due to lack of consideration lease contract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
I disagree. I don’t think anyone cares tho. They have elements of contract yes. A bear has elements of a horse but neither dogs. Whatever. Call them contracts, I think it’s misleading.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
LAWYER FIGHT
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I disagree. I don’t think anyone cares tho. They have elements of contract yes. A bear has elements of a horse but neither dogs. Whatever. Call them contracts, I think it’s misleading. NO. my depos today and tomorrow got cancelled so FIGHT ME about something. I'm taking this to the NFCE thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Every state has plenty of rules that deal with this situation in different ways, but if you addressed the issue from a pure old-timey common law perspective, the tenant would still own the right to possess the property for the extent of the lease (so long as the tenant continued to perform, i.e. pay rent), even after the sale. I’m not sure this is accurate even from a pure old-timey common law perspective; there are a lot of differences between encumbrances that run with the land and encumbrances that are purely personal contracts with the current owner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
Why is it pronounced "loy-er" and not "law-yurrr"? This is dumb and I want it changed, thank you for reading
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
The pronunciation changes based on region
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:the $1 lease to Bob for 99 years is an issue unto itself. A contract (in this case, a lease) is not enforceable if there is not sufficient consideration. In other words, if I contract to sell you a lawnmowed for 99 cents, but its worth $100.00, then even though everyone signed, the contract is still not enforceable because 99 cents is not sufficient consideration for the lawnmower. I'm not aware of any line of american contract law about voiding contracts for inadequate consideration, and plenty refusing to do so. I can see tax law or other law recharacterizing them though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I'm not aware of any line of american contract law about voiding contracts for inadequate consideration, and plenty refusing to do so. I can see tax law or other law recharacterizing them though. Louisiana has a specific provision of the Civil Code that deals with the sale of leased real property: Civil Code Art. 2712 posted:Art. 2712. Transfer of immovable subject to unrecorded lease
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:Why is it pronounced "loy-er" and not "law-yurrr"? This is dumb and I want it changed, thank you for reading Pretty much we only get it right here in Tennessee
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Louisiana has a specific provision of the Civil Code that deals with the sale of leased real property: that's not a consideration issue, that's basically a statute of frauds-like issue: making people put poo poo in writing if it's important, by voiding contracts that aren't in writing under certain circumstances, to shut people up about oral handshake agreements with no written evidence edit: or depending on what a "recorded" lease is, it might be more of a notice issue so that there is public notice of what properties are burdened by what leases
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that's not a consideration issue, that's basically a statute of frauds-like issue: making people put poo poo in writing if it's important, by voiding contracts that aren't in writing under certain circumstances, to shut people up about oral handshake agreements with no written evidence Yeah, wasn’t saying it was a consideration thing, just saying it’s very clear: leases don’t run with real property unless they are recorded, period. Sue the former owner for damages if you want. I think that’s the sane default rule*, but I concede other states have taken different approaches (it appears that in Georgia a lease runs with the property and so landlords will creatively invoke early termination rules). *It tracks the “bona fine purchaser for value” concept, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
Louisiana is ridiculous and will often be an exception to how things are done everywhere else
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Louisiana is ridiculous and will often be an exception to how things are done everywhere else That does happen although less than you would think. However, the distinction between a personal covenant and a covenant running with the land is well founded in English law brought to the other colonies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
ulmont posted:That does happen although less than you would think. However, the distinction between a personal covenant and a covenant running with the land is well founded in English law brought to the other colonies. I thought specifically Louis-I-ana based their laws on French law and not English.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:I thought specifically Louis-I-ana based their laws on French law and not English. I am aware*, which is why I referred to the English law brought to the other colonies to highlight that they were similar on this point. *This is a bit overblown. The criminal law after the Louisiana Purchase was always the English common criminal law, and over 200 years of orbiting the other, lesser, United States has caused significantly more alignment in 2020 than in 1803.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
Hey, I’ve got a friend in Boston who needs a sexual harassment lawyer fast, and probably more. Her coworker called her at home two weeks ago and told her he wanted to rape her and that he knew a hit man and would make sure she ended up in his trunk. He’s made creepy remarks before but nothing like this. She reported it to her boss and they told her he didn’t look Ike a rapist, moved her into the back corner of the office area they share, told her she wasn’t allowed to speak to him, and told her it was inappropriate to tell her friend and her dad and she could be fired. She has to see him every day and is deathly afraid of him, and is prevented from doing her job by their orders to never speak to him or about him, so she’s worried that they’re setting her up to fire her for not being able to do her job. I have told her like thirty times that she needs a lawyer, but they’ve told her that if she gets a lawyer she could get fired, and that if she files a police report she could get fired, and that if she tells anyone else what he did that he could sue her for defamation. Does anyone know of any lawyers in the Boston area that would salivate over this like I suspect they will?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 05:32
|
|
|
So which of the owners is this guy’s dad?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
elise the great posted:Hey, I’ve got a friend in Boston who needs a sexual harassment lawyer fast, and probably more. document all. Is any of this in writing or recorded? She should contact EEOC asap (with or without lawyer). What is her hesitation? Thesaurus fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
I have no idea what her deal is, she’s intimidated and thinks they’re really nice folks who will totally be reasonable if she just keeps her head down and agrees to sit in the corner. Frankly it drives me bonkers that she’s so dedicated to her own destruction. I’ve told her that she’s absolutely gonna get fired soon and that the dude is gonna start stalking her, but she won’t even talk to the police in case she gets fired. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvic...utm_name=iossmf
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
I guarantee her checks are getting shorted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
elise the great posted:I have no idea what her deal is, she’s intimidated and thinks they’re really nice folks who will totally be reasonable if she just keeps her head down and agrees to sit in the corner. Frankly it drives me bonkers that she’s so dedicated to her own destruction. I’ve told her that she’s absolutely gonna get fired soon and that the dude is gonna start stalking her, but she won’t even talk to the police in case she gets fired. ok, having read that, she's in limbo. The question is really what does she want done about it? Under federal anti sexual harassment law, the employer is not obligated to take any specific action in response to her complaint. The guy isn't her supervisor or manager, so the company isnt automatically liable for any harassment that occurred. The employer is supposed to take effective remedial action to ensure they the harassment does not continue. They aren't obligated to hold a mediation, make statements about sexual assault, fire the guy, or whatever else your friend may have proposed. If they "investigated" the complaint and there haven't been more incidents, then I don't think she'd have a successful sexual harassment case. "Keep em separated" is a common solution in these scenarios. Many people reasonably feel uncomfortable after making their complaint with the creep still working there, but the company will consider this a done deal if she doesn't raise further complaints. If she's actually retaliated against for her complaint, that's one thing. However, her fears are currently speculative. I didn't see anything in her post about the employer threatening her if she filed a police report. If she has proof they told her this, then they would potentially be a big issue, but general fear of retaliation isn't going to cut it. However, I don't think requiring confidentiality among coworkers regarding the investigation is per se retaliatory. If they've placed onerous limitations on her employment (where she can go who she can talk to, etc), as she suggests, then mayyyybe you can go the retaliation route, but it'd need to materially affect the terms and conditions of her employment. I'm not sure what options are open to her atm from a legal or practical standpoint. There may be relevant state laws. I'm *not* a lawyer and only know generally about federal anti discrimination issues. Edit: From her comment on reddit: quote:I’m so conflicted because it feels like they’re doing the right thing in that regard to protect the business from liability and also to protect me at work, but it still leaves me wondering about a lot of the comments regarding the situation and whether they are choosing to believe that he never said it for whatever reason. You should remind her the employer only cares about its liability and yes, they will use all statements against her to do so. This is at the guiding principle of all workplace harassment claims. It also sounds like she's kinda satisfied with the outcome? Won't be left alone with him, etc. Unfortunately the employer doesn't need to make her feel comfortable or validated in her complaint. Thesaurus fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
The relevant case on hostile work environment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._Forklift_Systems,_Inc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Lmao loving bulk discount. What did he go to the Costco of coke? Cokestco? You absolutely do get bulk discounts on drugs. It is actually a pretty annoying issue because there are people who buy in bulk, have no indicia of sales, and still get charged with sales. Hence the costco defense, which is actually what we call it. Yes, we also use this defense when there are indicia of sales because what the gently caress else we gonna do, say it isn't coke?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:14
|
|
|
nm posted:You absolutely do get bulk discounts on drugs. It is actually a pretty annoying issue because there are people who buy in bulk, have no indicia of sales, and still get charged with sales. Hence the costco defense, which is actually what we call it. I thought it was bespoke hand crushed talcum powder. You mean that guy in civic was selling drugs?! That's so irresponsible I'm suing for fraud. Could you sue a drug dealer for breach of contract or fraud if you could prove there was a deal to exchange $X for X kg if 99% pure coke or whatever but it was cut with a bunch if poo poo? Sure you're admitting to possession or whatever but if you're already convicted might as well get your money back. Outrail fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Dec 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 14:19
|
|
|
A valid contract can't be for an illegal act, but if you were a licensed research facility and acting under the impression that the seller was legit maybe
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
Outrail posted:I thought it was bespoke hand crushed talcum powder. You mean that guy in civic was selling drugs?! That's so irresponsible I'm suing for fraud. No because the drug dealer would have you murdered and your estate would lack standing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
I really want to see someone hire a process server to serve papers on "Fat Eddie, the coke dealer who works the back room at Faces on Tuesdays."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
I was listening to a podcast and they were reviewing the case of this lady who was trying to hire a hit man to kill her husband. As these things go, she was connected to a cop posing like a hit man and was subsequently charged with solicitation to commit first degree murder. What I'm curious about is that late in the discussions with the hitman/cop, the cop asked her if she really wanted to go through with it. It was a point of no return, sort of, where he told her if she said yes it was definitely going to happen. My question is what would happen if she said no and called it off? Given they were so far in the discussions, would they still be able to charge her with solicitation? Would it still be solicitation but with potentially lighter sentencing? Does it matter if money had already changed hands?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
Update on sexual harassment friend: her father, who also works for the same company, kept telling her to keep her head down and not make a fuss and “everyone’s true colors would come out in the end,” which is a weird way of telling your daughter that when she gets raped that’ll show her bosses what’s up. This morning her dad was fired lol At least she’s getting a lawyer now??
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
Recently on my way home from work in Oklahoma (10:30PM) I was stopped at a red light alone. Nobody was in front of me, to the side of me, or behind me... at first. I was stopped for about 20 seconds and suddenly I had no clue what had happened. Once my mind caught up I realized I had been rear ended so after an unknown amount of time went by where I thought I should get out and check on the driver of the truck that hit me as he had not come to my vehicle. As soon as I got out and took a few wobbly steps the truck immediately sped off right by me making me jump out of the way to avoid impact number two which I wasn’t looking forward to. Truck VS body would end bad. It seems the driver was waiting on me to get out so he could have more of a lead time as he decided to get the hell out of dodge and fled the scene. With adrenaline pumping to numb the pain and no phone for a 911 call because the collision launched it to the rear window/dash I decided I had to pursue him. Somehow I got him to pull over when he realized I wasn’t giving up and I imagine he thought I already called 911. When he stopped finally it was immediately evident he was intoxicated. Couldn’t open his glove box intoxicated. While my phone was launched I eventually remembered I had a work device I could record video with. Even in my concussed state of mind I knew I needed some evidence such as tag number, photos/videos of him trying to talk, time stamps, etc. He was “driving home from a friends house” but his first answer was “leaving the bar going home”. Wish I had that part on video. After making sure I had his name and phone number I saw my phone light up in my rear window. When I went for it he basically decided it was time for him to get the hell out of there as I was trying to get him to call his insurance and the police on his phone. That didn’t happen for obvious reasons. Basically what we have is a drunk driver rear ending me and fleeing the scene, twice. Once I got my phone I immediately called 911 to explain what happened and let them know what he was driving and where he was going, what he was doing (running red lights, going 80+ in a 40 MPH zone, giving direction of travel among other things). I received a concussion, some bleeding cuts on the head, and ended up getting treatment within a few days. Should have been immediately but... concussions make decision making terrible. Treatment was three times a week for therapy/cognitive improvement/medications. His insurance company has accepted responsibility and I have only settled the car portion since it was totaled. Now that is over with or will be next week I have the other half of medical bills, property damage of personal items that broke on impact inside my car, pain and suffering, and other issues I’m sure. Initially I had an attorney but we spilt ways due to Farmers not yet accepting responsibility and me not receiving answers from him despite knowing him fairly well. So, I’m planning on handling this on my own. I have mixed feelings but am generally comfortable with doing so. Question time now. A normal rear end collision I have been through in the past. Having a drunk driver hit me and flee twice is a new one. law Enforcement tried to track him down that night with no luck. I did have an officer stop by my home to file the report. How much of a difference to insurance companies does it make with a simple accidental rear end collision vs a DD who fled? Twice. So many things are subjective I realize but any help as far as what to expect now that the car portion is completed would be appreciated. My plan is after they make their first hilariously low offer to draft my Demand Letter I just don’t want to ask for too much and look incompetent or greedy. But between losing a car to a DD who fled the scene, almost getting hit by the truck when I exited, medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering and other issues do I shoot for the moon or come up with a “reasonable” number that doesn’t make it look like I am trying to retire off this. For context I am in my mid 30’s, good health other than back issues/concussion from the incident. Talking to more attorneys is always an option locally especially now that his insurance has taken responsibility. TL;DR: Drunk guy hit me and fled the scene while I was stopped at a light. Went though a month of physical therapy and even switched to working mornings so I don’t have to drive home late at night as it terrifies me. His insurance accepts responsibility so that helps. Is the drunk driving hit and run a small or large part of the claim as a total? Once I receive their sure to be hilarious offer should I escalate to asking considerably more in a Demand Letter or are there other ways? Thank you all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
Get a new lawyer
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 01:59
|
|
|
sephiRoth IRA posted:I was listening to a podcast and they were reviewing the case of this lady who was trying to hire a hit man to kill her husband. As these things go, she was connected to a cop posing like a hit man and was subsequently charged with solicitation to commit first degree murder. In Texas it’d still be solicitation - a) A person commits an offense if, with intent that a capital felony or felony of the first degree be committed, he requests, commands, or attempts to induce another to engage in specific conduct that, under the circumstances surrounding his conduct as the actor believes them to be, would constitute the felony or make the other a party to its commission. The person Still requested and attempted to induce the person to commit the murder, even if he backs out last moment The final question just locks down the mens rea. Backing down at the last moment / exchanging money would have effect on sentencing but so would everything else in the act
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 02:04
|
|
|
Seriously get an attorney, when my partner was hit by a car we were so much better off because we engaged a lawyer. Doing it yourself is leaning money on the table and you don't even know what you might be overlooking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
Echoing others but with slightly more detail, without a lawyer you have A. no reference point for the value of your claim for negotiations, as that is highly jurisdiction specific, and B. no chance of punitive damages for the DWI with no blood draw confirming BAC
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
WouldDesk posted:... concussions make decision making terrible.  Surely you can see what anyone with a lick of sense will tell you. Get a new lawyer and do what they tell you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
WouldDesk posted:Talking to more attorneys is always an option locally especially now that his insurance has taken responsibility. It's not an option, it's a necessity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 05:22
|
|
