|
E-flat posted:Say two people have a contract with each other that says neither party can modify it without permission from both. Can a third party come along and dissolve it, or does getting rid of a contract count as modifying it? Bit late to this but yeah, norwegian contract law has a statutory ability for the courts to amend the contents of an unbalanced contract to terms more in line with some sort of generalized fairness/caselaw. Of course, this is in practice limited to between a professional contractual party (company/devil) and a consumer (village idiot/NPC) where there's a clear imbalance of power. Seeing as lawyers are basically gods in any rule based game format (or vice versa) the closest thing to the courts in this situation would probably be some form of divine intervention. Which would probably set off a whole new questline to find the best referral to a divine counsel with a license to practice in your realm. Obviously, not your lawyer, this isn't legal advice, I accept no liability, tell Asmodeus I said hi, go gently caress yourself etc.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Really it just seems like your party is on a quest to find the five most evil souls in the realm and deliver them (a little early) to their just reward
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 11:41
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Really it just seems like your party is on a quest to find the five most evil souls in the realm and deliver them (a little early) to their just reward Starting with the NPC in question as they are clearly the root of this particular evil situation in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
Is the demon antonin scalia?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Why not just use your wish to gain power or leverage over the demon and force them to modify the contract. Maybe turn him in to your tame demon pet. There's no way that could go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
The NPC is clearly evil and/or stupid, because he entered a pact with a demon. But he's also clearly dangerous, for the same reason. The optimal solution is just kill the NPC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:The NPC is clearly evil and/or stupid, because he entered a pact with a demon. But he's also clearly dangerous, for the same reason. The optimal solution is just kill the NPC. Take him to another plane of existence first so the demon can’t get a foothold in your Prime Material through his soul, since that’s apparently a worry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 22:35
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:The NPC is clearly evil and/or stupid, because he entered a pact with a demon. But he's also clearly dangerous, for the same reason. The optimal solution is just kill the NPC. Wish for 4 copies of the npc and turn in his souls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:Wish for 4 copies of the npc and turn in his souls. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
Accrue so many debts to supernatural entities that you have to declare magical bankruptcy, then let your creditors fight it out
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 14:09
|
|
|
echopapa posted:Accrue so many debts to supernatural entities that you have to declare magical bankruptcy, then let your creditors fight it out The Constantine Gambit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 14:23
|
|
|
Purchase five copies of dark souls, present those. When called on the obvious, insist that so many people's souls have left their bodies in frustration playing it, all they really need to do is distribute and wait.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Purchase five copies of dark souls, present those. When called on the obvious, insist that so many people's souls have left their bodies in frustration playing it, all they really need to do is distribute and wait. The interdimensional court finds that those are not souls -- They are souls-like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
Maybe this demon is less bad than other demons, and you can work out a trade for souls that are already in hell. If they’re from the right place but died in a foreign land, that could satisfy the contract in full without giving the demon a foothold in a new area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 18:30
|
|
|
echopapa posted:Accrue so many debts to supernatural entities that you have to declare magical bankruptcy, then let your creditors fight it out I don't think you want to find out what happens when magical bankruptcy trustee has to liquidate your soul.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
Spoilers for The Mist (2007). Since we are off in fantasy land, would the main character face charges for what he did in the final scene of The Mist? If so, what is the likelihood he would be found guilty - there were some extenuating circumstances, after all. edit: Are there any similar real-world examples? Say, if you substitute an invading army instead of monsters in the mist. Skunkduster fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jan 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
Good question! Edit: Pretend every time I say Mark Wahlberg I mean Thomas Jane. Let's assume this is in my state, where self defense is a subset of necessity defense. Necessity defense involved three questions, and self defense a fourth. First, was the action taken by the defendant subjectively reasonable - in other words was the defendant's personal belief of necessity reasonable? Second, was the action taken by the defendant objectively reasonable - could a generic reasonable person in the defendant's shoes also reasonably conclude the same thing? Third, were there other lawful options reasonably available to the defendant? And fourth, we're the defendants actions proportionate to the possible harm - i.e. lethal self defense required threat of lethal harm? In order to secure a conviction for murder the government bears the burden of disproving any one of those four elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's give Mark Walhberg the benefit of the doubt that he personally believed the killings were necessary, or at least the government can't crawl into his head and disprove his personal belief. Let's also dispatch with proportionate. The government can't disprove that abduction and grisly murder by aliens is proportionate to the use of lethal force. If these were aliens spray painting graffiti on his fence Mark couldn't kill them. But objective evidence - including a film crew - established several gruesome deaths. So in order to secure a conviction the government must disprove objectively reasonable or lack of alternatives beyond a reasonable doubt. What alternatives were available to Mark in that moment? Well, his car was not under imminent threat. There was nothing actually banging on the windows. So he could have simply waited maybe. Could he have gotten the group out of the car and made a run for it? Is that a reasonable alternative given the proclivity of the aliens to ambush from the fog? Could he have fired the shots in the air as a call for help? Who's around to hear him? Would there be a difference if these were slow walking The Blob aliens instead of ambusher aliens? At the very least, I believe there is doubt here even if we could think of some other stuff for him to do. Government fails on this element imo. Thru just can't disprove this element beyond a reasonable doubt. Next, could a reasonable person in Mark's shoes find the killings reasonably necessary? What is a reasonable person? That, ladies and members of the jury, is you. You put your twelve heads together and come up with what a reasonable person is and what all of the possible actions are in this scenario. If you find that the killings are within the realm of reasonable, you must acquit. And I want to emphasize, if you find that the government has failed to disprove that the killings are reasonable you must acquit. The burden rests with the government, and the government fails to meet that burden. I'd acquit. BigHead fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jan 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Good question! Thanks for the detailed write up. Even if he was legally in the wrong, if I was on a jury I would acquit just based on the fact that living with what he did is going to be punishment enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
BigHead posted:
Whom? Whomst starred in The Mist councilor? It was not a member of the funky bunch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Whom? Whomst starred in The Mist councilor? It was not a member of the funky bunch. What? It's a Steven King book. There are at least two versions that I can think of off the top of my head, including the Mark Wahlberg version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
Get the demonic contract annulled by proving that the demon was not competent to sign a contract. Find the demon's relatives and get them all to attest that the demon isn't of sound mind. Get a holy psychologist expert witness to attest to the same. e. alternatively: the demon's contractual claim on people's souls is illegal, and you don't have to perform on a contract where you'd have to break the law to perform. or, for comedy option: go full soverign citizen on this poo poo. Gold fringe, admiralty court, you have a claim on "npc"'s souls but this is NPC, human(?) person, not npc, character, etc. etc. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jan 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
I've never found juries to be particularly reasonable, nor reasoned. At times, probably not even reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I've never found juries to be particularly reasonable, nor reasoned. At times, probably not even reasoning. Do you ever get any insight into their discussions or what reasoning they used to come to their verdict?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 22:08
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Do you ever get any insight into their discussions or what reasoning they used to come to their verdict? You can ask to talk to them after the case; sometimes they'll say yes, sometimes no. They may or may not lie. (FWIW I've watched the deliberations of mock juries for complex patent litigations I've worked on and holy poo poo if anything will convince you not to have juries in that kind of case it's that.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 22:09
|
|
|
BigHead posted:What? It's a Steven King book. There are at least two versions that I can think of off the top of my head, including the Mark Wahlberg version. Are you thinking of The Happening? Marky Mark wasn't in The Mist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:Are you thinking of The Happening? Marky Mark wasn't in The Mist. We the jury find Marky Mark not guilty on all charges because he wasn't even in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Debtor filed to have his bankruptcy dismissed and it was granted. We filed to have it un-dismissed because I guess you don't have a guaranteed right to dismissal if your bankruptcy has been converted from another chapter. December 4th JFC this poo poo will never end
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
Bird with big road ahead still
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:Are you thinking of The Happening? Marky Mark wasn't in The Mist. If you held a gun to my head I would swear he was in The Mist. Swear. Thomas Jane? The guy from the Expanse? How did I mix that up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 23:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
Wow, haven't seen that game in a while
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
BigHead posted:If you held a gun to my head I would swear he was in The Mist. Swear. Thomas Jane? The guy from the Expanse? How did I mix that up? They do look kind of similar and Marky Mark was in The Happening. He's also the guy from Arrested Development and, the one that stands out for me, another Stephen King, Dreamcatcher.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
sullat posted:Wow, haven't seen that game in a while I just spent a month writing a guide for it, don't ask me why, I don't know https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2906166440
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
I do not have any outstanding legal issue nor do I expect one anytime soon. But considering how punitive the American system is, it's probably a good idea to have a lawyer in mind if I'm being questioned and need one. Do I just give them the number of someone I looked up on google? Should I have a pre-existing relationship with one, and how would I even do that when nothing is going on right now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 05:24
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Do you ever get any insight into their discussions or what reasoning they used to come to their verdict? When I used to transcribe court hearings I used to hear the instructions the judge would give to juries and also some of the questions the jury would ask which the judge would have to answer, and oh god I'm glad we only have juries for certain criminal trials and not anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 12:05
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:I do not have any outstanding legal issue nor do I expect one anytime soon. It entirely depends on what problems you expect to come up. A divorce lawyer is not a criminal defense lawyer is not a wills and trusts lawyer is not a business structure lawyer. When you need a particular breed of lawyer, either ask people you trust who have faced similar problems if they have someone they can refer you to, or call your local bar association and ask them. If you're literally worried about talking to cops, you're allowed to say "I'd prefer to talk to a lawyer before I talk to you." You don't have to show them the lawyer's number in your cell phone. Don't show the cops your cell phone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 07:52
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:It entirely depends on what problems you expect to come up. A divorce lawyer is not a criminal defense lawyer is not a wills and trusts lawyer is not a business structure lawyer. When you need a particular breed of lawyer, either ask people you trust who have faced similar problems if they have someone they can refer you to, or call your local bar association and ask them. Also don't forget to stick a dollar bill under his collar before you talk to him otherwise what you tell him isn't protected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:We're not doing your sitcom idea for the last time lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
E-flat posted:Say two people have a contract with each other that says neither party can modify it without permission from both. Can a third party come along and dissolve it, or does getting rid of a contract count as modifying it? 1) "Modifying" the contract is not the same thing as "Terminating" the contract. Contracts are, at their most basic sense, a promise by one party to do a thing in exchange for another party doing a thing. - Modification is changing one of the things that are to be done. - Termination is canceling the reciprocal obligations to do the things. - Breach is where one party does their thing, but the other party does not do their thing. This is when you can take the contract to a Court or tribunal to have the Court award the non-breaching party their legal justice. That justice can come in the form of money, to compensate the non-breaching party, or ordering the breaching party to do the thing promised (rare in the real world). 2) Ways for the parties to Terminate a contract: in the real world - If the contract itself has a provision in it that allows one party or the other to terminate the reciprocal obligations. 3) Ways for a Court to Terminate a contract: in the real world (one of the parties asks the Court or tribunal to declare the contract terminated) - The contract is illegal, violates criminal law or some civil code. - The contract is impossible to perform, asks a party to sell to the other party a thing that doesn't exist, for example. - The contract lacks sufficient consideration, One party promises to give the other $1,000,000, the other party promises to give a paperclip. - The party asking the Court to terminate was not in their right mind when they made the deal, drunk, mentally incapacitated, or under extreme duress (gun to their head type thing) - There was not a meeting of the minds about the contract matter, (Buying an "Elephant Gun," one party thinks he's buying a gun shaped like an elephant, the other thinks he's selling a gun that can kill elephants.) - One party has already breached the contract, and the other party hasn't performed yet and wants the Court to let them out of performing. (He was supposed to deliver the Elephant Gun on Thursday - its Friday and he never delivered, so I don't have to pay/He delivered a gun Shaped like an elephant, so I don't have to pay) 4) Substantial Performance is a defense to a breach of contract. If you agree to sell 10 cords of red oak wood to someone and you deliver white oak wood, and they sue, you could argue to the Court, "There's no real difference between the two." and if the Court agrees, the Court will find that you performed. IF There is no "Tribunal" or other enforcement entity, what happens if your client just says, "No, I'm not gonna perform."? Can the demon forcibly take their soul? Can they do it if you give your soul to someone or something else? What if you put your soul into an artifact or some poo poo, then you can't 'deliver' it to the demon when the time comes due. Unless someone is going to probate the demon's estate, there would be no enforcement mechanism for the contract if the demon died before you had to perform.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
Demon probate court sounds like a terrible addition to any game setting imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
skooma512 posted:I do not have any outstanding legal issue nor do I expect one anytime soon. Here's a good video explainer about talking to the cops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWEpW6KOZDs Past that, ask to talk to a public defender. You may not qualify but maybe you will. Generally it'll take a few days to get a lawyer to you, though that varies a lot depending on where you are etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 16:31
|
|