|
Is this the right place to ask about where I might find some helpful information about getting some backpay I'm owed?
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
Karb posted:I posted this a few pages back and the general response was to err on the side of caution, which sounded good to me. I have some new information that is relevant, however, and I thought that might change people's opinions. I'm not your lawyer, I have never taken a bar exam and as always this is general advice. However, I did work with student conduct as an undergrad. This is less of a legal issue than a school policy issue. We saw people from time to time who's lawyers advised them only for admissions to say "that's not our policy" and kick them out for failing to properly complete an application. Call the admissions office for the schools/programs you're applying to and ask. Don't give them your full name. Keep a log of the call by writing down the questions you asked, when you called, who you spoke to, their position, and what they said for you to do. Then do that. The answers may be different for different schools.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:
A useful state agency http://www.insurance.ca.gov/. No, really. You can even call them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
I'm hoping this is the right thread. I have a question that's pretty sensitive in nature but it's something I need answered. Does anyone that is familiar with Minnesota laws (Hennepin County is where the incident happened) have PMs so I could shoot them a question? I'm currently looking at lawyers but I'd like to have a lawyer goon give some input if possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
Shed posted:I'm hoping this is the right thread. I have a question that's pretty sensitive in nature but it's something I need answered. Does anyone that is familiar with Minnesota laws (Hennepin County is where the incident happened) have PMs so I could shoot them a question? I'm currently looking at lawyers but I'd like to have a lawyer goon give some input if possible. You're going to have to at least tell people what area of law you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:You're going to have to at least tell people what area of law you're talking about. Assault.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Shed posted:I'm hoping this is the right thread. I have a question that's pretty sensitive in nature but it's something I need answered. Does anyone that is familiar with Minnesota laws (Hennepin County is where the incident happened) have PMs so I could shoot them a question? I'm currently looking at lawyers but I'd like to have a lawyer goon give some input if possible. I'm a barred Minnesota attorney who does criminal law in California. The only advice I'm going to give you is: Hire a lawyer. The public defender system is pretty good in MN.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
nm posted:The public defender system is pretty good in MN. This reminds me of something. It seems like I'm vaguely aware that public defender systems are not good in some places. Is that true? If it is true, what kind of reasoning is there behind not properly funding/designing a good public defender system? To this layperson, it seems like that would be one of the top priorities of a fair justice system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:This reminds me of something. It seems like I'm vaguely aware that public defender systems are not good in some places. Is that true? Why should I spend my money on criminals?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:fair justice system. HAHAHAHAHhahahah.... Ok, the answer is really that it's a major budget expense (^^ what he said). Some states are barely able to keep the courthouse doors open, and increasing the protection of defendants is not exactly a priority for legislatures. But some states are decent. I'm in VA, and I'd recommend anyone here to get a court-appointed attorney if they meet the income qualifications.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
I have a kind-of weird issue, but I was kind-of hoping I could get a little advice - more really advice of if this is even something I could/should try and see a lawyer about, or just ignore it and it'll stop eventually. First, very short back story: There's an individual that I used to be semi-acquaintances with (internet, never met the woman in real life thankfully. We did a little art trade because she seemed friendly enough and I had the time to spare to do it. What she gave me was pretty awful. Long story short, I made fun of it in a place I thought was private, but it turns out it wasn't. That sparked a flame that hasn't died since then. She went on a massive tirade during that time (~2005 I would estimate, I don't think I still have the CD that had all of the craziness backed up) And then one day, she just disappeared. Until July 1st, when I get an email in my box from 'her mother', stating that SHE IS A DISABLED WOMAN WITH ADHD HOW DARE YOU. The thing is, the woman (who I'll refer to here as Kim) is a completely insane nut. She does seem to have something very, very wrong with her, and it's evident the moment you lay eyes on it. At any rate, the emails from her have continued to come to me. Several even went so far as to include her home address, and saying things like Nutter posted:"Hi, I've only made three or so replies, max - all of them basically say, STOP CONTACTING ME. I've made screenshots of all of this, so if I do end up going to a lawyer, then I have the proof. But then, about two weeks ago she made a blogger account and emailed me nothing but the link. It was all about me, even though she misspelled my name, making it at least seven different ways on one page. It was... really quite amazing. Thankfully, I got Blogger to take it down, but once again I did save/screenshot it. The most terrifying part of it was not all the bizarre bullshit she put down there, but that she also had several screenshots / photos of our house posted om it as well. ANYWAY NOW TO MY QUESTION. Sorry that go long. This morning, I get a new email from her stating that she has contacted a police officer about my 'repeated harassment'. Now, on the first hand I'm just thinking, she had to be blowing smoke out her rear end. She's crazy, she might just say anything. On the other hand, I was having a look at my domain's visitor logs for the past couple of days, and the one I know is her visited just before one that resolved back to the police department of the town she lies in, leading me to suspect that she did file a report and gave him my website URL. (Sure hope he likes reading about nail polish reviews!) How can I found out if she DID actually file a report? And, lastly: I know internet harassment has become a big 'thing' in the news and media lately, and I don't really want to have to deal with this if I don't have to... but it's gotta stop. How can I assure that will happen? Do I need to talk to a lawyer? Take out my own restraining order maybe, or does that require already having a lawyer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 08:01
|
|
|
Earlier this year I spoke with a gallery about doing some custom artwork. Because I'm trusting and never worked with artists before I was dumb and put $400 down to cover the cost of materials and a deadline of October 1st was verbally established. Now the gallery owner is telling me that he cannot have the work done this year and that he won't return the money. I want to take the gallery to small claims court, but the receipt I had for the $400 hasn't turned up after a couple days of searching and I'm afraid it may just have disappeared entirely. The sculptor who used to work for the gallery and initially talked me into working with them is willing to go to court to back me up on all of this. That's all well and good, but am I hosed without that receipt? I'm located in Wisconsin. The gallery owner turned out to be a real sleaze; he said that my argument wouldn't stand up in court because the deadline was only verbal, that the receipt wasn't detailed enough to be proof of anything and just said $400, and that it's the sculptor's responsibility to pay me back even though the he was never given any of the money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 15:31
|
|
|
Illegibly: you could certainly go to court - having the sculptor on your side or available to come testify in small claims would be very helpful. The law does recognize verbal contracts, and this guy's claim that "there's nothing in writing, you can't do poo poo!" is entirely wrong.* A receipt would be helpful, but is not necessary - in small claims the standard is basically whether the judge believes you more than the other guy, and how much more the judge believes you. *If you formed the agreement more than a year before October 1st, this gets more complicated, but odds are it can still be enforced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Thanks, Arcturas. I know that verbal contracts are indeed legally binding and understood somewhat how small claims court works, but it's nice to have some confirmation that I may actually have a case without the receipt!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:*If you formed the agreement more than a year before October 1st, this gets more complicated, but odds are it can still be enforced. How do you get around SoF if you are most definitely outside of it? (agreed performance date more than year after formation) Maybe this is easy, but my brain hurts from working on an IT problem all morning and I can't figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
There's a term that I can hear my contracts professor saying that's escaping my brain right now. Ratified maybe? They could initially form the agreement a decade ago, but if they reaffirm/ratify/whatever it with a meeting of the minds during the year before performance then it's legit. Like "Hey are we still on for that lousy art deal we made a year ago?" "Sure, just get me the money and I'll get you some art (sucka)". He'd be enforcing that deal, instead of the original one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Dogen posted:How do you get around SoF if you are most definitely outside of it? (agreed performance date more than year after formation) If the work could have been performed at any time but not later than October 1st, performance within one year was not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Even if you cant get specific performance or damages for breach of the contract you can just sue that bitch rear end nigga in the law of restitution. How'd you like an action for unjust enrichment bitch? Money had and received, total failure of consideration! Watch out for the change of position defence though... don't let that rear end in a top hat spend any of the money. I don't know what the position is in the US with regard to such a claim being personal or proprietary in nature but if it's personal then if he passes that money onto some bona fide third party who doesn't have notice then you might be hosed. Your best option would be to burn the art gallery down, wait for him to collect the insurance and then immediately hit him with court summons so you can get in and out with the money before he has chance to do anything with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
^^^also thisulmont posted:If the work could have been performed at any time but not later than October 1st, performance within one year was not impossible. Oh, right. The deadline was Oct 1st, not the whole performance. Duh. How did I ever pass the bar...
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:*If you formed the agreement more than a year before October 1st, this gets more complicated Not in small claims court, it won't. Plus, owner is unlikely to hire an attorney and file for removal to district court over $400.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
While suggesting that the OP commit arson is clearly the most-level-headed strategy, I think you guys are missing the point: it's $400. The gallery owner is talking tough now, but if the OP actually files a small-claims action, the owner may change his tune upon receiving service. There's something about the formality of complaint papers that intimidates people. And filing a complaint is a signal to the owner that the OP is serious about getting his money back. I say that the OP should wander down to the local courthouse and fill out one of the pro se form small-claims complaints for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, etc. entris fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Aug 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Not in small claims court, it won't. Plus, owner is unlikely to hire an attorney and file for removal to district court over $400. Doesn't SoF apply to small claims actions? I know the ordinary rules of evidence don't apply in small claims, but Statute of Frauds is more a substantive contract rule than an evidentiary rule. (c.f. Erie doctrine decisions on the SoF) But yeah, it's easy to get around if the contract left open the possibility of completion inside one year. EDIT: And entris, why not a small claims complaint? To a layperson it looks just as formal, plus recovery of costs & fees is more clearly explained to plaintiffs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
The person would have to raise SoF as an affirmative defense which is unlikely at small claims.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:
Sorry, I was unclear - I think a small claims complaint is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Filed a few hours ago, requested an additional 94.50 to cover the cost of filing. Court date is the third week in September. I'll update. A few days ago when I asked the gallery owner for the money he said he'd already spent some of it on purchasing an armature for the project. When I said I was willing to take the armature for what he paid for it and have him pay the rest of the $400 difference said he was using the armature for other work. Should I mention this bit in court? I doubt he actually purchased anything materials-wise and is likely bullshitting; I'd rather have the money than the armature anyway but I was trying to compromise with the guy. It seems to me that him using the supposed armature for other projects would invalidate any claim he would have in regards to it being specifically used for mine and as such he wouldn't be able to deduct the cost from what he owes. Then again that seems too logical, and we all know the justice system isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
In the breach of contract claim, what you'll want to say is this: I paid him $400, we agreed he'd get me the artwork by October 1, at which time I'd finish paying him. He's breached that contract and said he won't get me the artwork. Legally, I don't think what he used the $400 for is particularly relevant, except in as much as it makes him more judgment proof (less stuff for you to take if you win).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
Keep a log of every communication you have with the guy and include notes on what he says. It may also be worthwhile to send him letter / E-mails just so you can get his responses in writing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Doesn't SoF apply to small claims actions? I know the ordinary rules of evidence don't apply in small claims, but Statute of Frauds is more a substantive contract rule than an evidentiary rule. (c.f. Erie doctrine decisions on the SoF) I viewed it more as a full-on equity court. Here, the law is "The hearing and disposition of such actions shall be informal with the sole object of dispensing speedy justice between the parties." The only substantive law I've seen applied on appeal is that you can't deny a party due process. SC cases here are appealable in the same way as a 'regular' lawsuit, so the paucity of SC cases isn't due to lack of access to the appellate courts. Your State/mileage may vary, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
At least in my glorious commonwealth the "small claims" judges don't even have to be lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
Illegibly Eligible posted:Filed a few hours ago, requested an additional 94.50 to cover the cost of filing. Court date is the third week in September. I'll update. The fact that you tried to work it out is important. You want to make it clear that you didn't just run to court. Restate what he told you about refusing to produce or pay. Say that you tried to negotiate with the armature as evidence of your good will, but that you're no longer willing to negotiate for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
poo poo keeps turning up, apparently, and now my landlord is telling me wife that we owe them $1,000. We terminated the lease to join the military, had the move out inspection, made it very clear that we were moving out on July 31st. Now the landlord is calling my wife and telling her that someone is liable for the remaining rent and they can't find the third person that was on our lease so she's trying to charge her. I have assured her that this is illegal and there's nothing to worry about. She has a lawyer, and our recruiter is getting in contact with the legal department on base, but if this goes to collections then she won't be able to get her security clearance. I am 100% willing to sue these assholes for anything that I can, because they have been nothing but difficult, trying to gently caress up this military lease termination process the entire time. I am also willing to throw my old roommate under the bus and let them bill him because he never paid any of his rent and was generally worthless, I just need to track him down and find out his current information. halp
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
If I invent and patent some new amazing thing that makes it so that people can't compete, say a means to make 50ghz processors for 50¢ a unit and get a monopoly this way, can the government annul my patent when I raise the price to $1000 a chip?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:If I invent and patent some new amazing thing that makes it so that people can't compete, say a means to make 50ghz processors for 50¢ a unit and get a monopoly this way, can the government annul my patent when I raise the price to $1000 a chip? The government can't annul your patent, although there are reexamination and litigation procedures for challenging whether it should have been granted. The government can grant a compulsory license with a reasonable royalty. All major patent offices comply with TRIPs. If a patent is not exploited over an extended period, or if the patentee cannot meet the demand for a product and if they refuse to license the patent under reasonable terms, a license might be granted to another party. The actual exact requirement varies from country to country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
State: California County: Los Angeles I work in a bar, and recently a customer I hadn't seen in a while told me a pretty unbelievable story: About a year ago, she was too intoxicated to drive. A less-drunk friend of hers volunteered to drive. They get pulled over by CHP and the friend/driver is still over the legal limit and is arrested for DUI. Her car is impounded. She gets the car out the following day without incident. A year passes. She has no further contact with friend/driver. She is pulled over for a taillight infraction. The police inform her that friend/driver has not appeared in court and has a warrant out for his arrest, therefore her car will be impounded. Impound fees are about $600, which she cannot afford, and her car goes to auction and is sold. This all sounds really fishy to me. How can the police impound the property of one person for the failing to appear of another? Friend/driver was not in any way associated with the vehicle (Not on title, insurance, etc). What purpose would such a law serve? Does my customer have any recourse? Alternately, I'm assuming she was just aiming for free beer/sympathy, because I can't for the life of me fathom how someones property can be forfeit for the unrelated actions of others? This is driving me crazy with how much sense it doesn't make.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Sounds like bullshit unless friend's name is on the title (and even then).
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
I would have dismissed it out of hand were it not for the fact that I verified yesterday (that I should have put in my earlier post) that friend/driver does in fact have a warrant for not completing his DUI stipulations (fines/cs/whatever). How would Customer know this, had the police not told her? Does that make her story any more/less valid? (I'm staying out of this between the two of them, they can sort it out if they want. I'm merely curious because it all sounds so... weird. It's like if I had a guy at my house for a party, they get into a fight, cops are called, they're arrested/cited, and they didn't go to court, and they take my house away.) EDIT: The way I can logically interpret the story as a possible truth is "Cops pulled me over for (another, more serious unrelated infraction) and on the DMV records it shows that someone with a warrant was once cited as driving this vehicle, we will inquire as to the whereabouts of this person, and impound the vehicle for $more_serious_unrelated_infraction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
The only thing I can think of is if the police somehow thought it was the DUI persons car all along, and that she was merely borrowing it during the 2nd impound. Like if in their system it pulled up as belonging to the DUI person. That's a total crazy mistake that doesn't seem possible, but police have been know to make those...
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Clockwork Sputnik posted:This all sounds really fishy to me. How can the police impound the property of one person for the failing to appear of another? Friend/driver was not in any way associated with the vehicle (Not on title, insurance, etc). I can't speak for California, but there are laws like this in parts of Australia, allowing cars used in certain traffic offences to be impounded even if the car doesn't belong to the driver and is being used without the owner's permission. It's "justified" by pointing to situations like a kid borrowing their parents' car, but the main purpose it serves is basically to allow politicians to look Tough On Crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
This scenario's likely to make me sound incredibly naive, if not stupid, but you're the law-talkin' guys and I can only learn from mistakes, so here we go: I've been performing a number of duties for a company on a freelance basis, editing, writing copy, website work, etc. The only one I really care about is writing for the intents of this post. My question is in regards to non-competes, and if you'd care to throw in some thoughts about the situation in general, I'd honestly like to hear them. The first contract I signed was a six-month deal in May of 2011. It contained a six-month non-compete clause after completion or termination anywhere in the US working for any competitor performing anything similar to/any of my current duties. Once this contract expired in November, I was working "in good faith," I believe it's called(?), until January of 2012. Point is, I was still getting paid regularly and on a timely basis, so I thought nothing of it. I signed a renewal of the previous contract (complete with you can't work anywhere in the U.S). That contract expired in early July. Despite my pushing for a new contract, nothing's been drawn up, only discussed. To wrap things up so this doesn't get too long, hypothetically speaking, if I got a contract to write for another company, should I be concerned regarding the nation-wide non-compete? Would it matter if I'd be writing for free? I'm happy to clarify anything if necessary and thanks in advance for any and all help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
Noncompetes get really complicated, and you really ought to talk to a local lawyer. The law governing them varies pretty dramatically from state to state, but here're the basics. Generally speaking, noncompetes are frowned upon - they have to be narrowly drawn so as to only protect the business's investment in you as an employee, and in any good will you may have generated with their customers. That means the noncompete has to be reasonable in time (yours is six months, pretty reasonable), and scope. Scope is geographic (the whole US is pretty unreasonable) and activities (writing for any competitor doing anything similar is awful broad). So at first glance, I think they'd have a hard time enforcing the noncompete. However, fighting it in court can get pretty pricey for you, even if you win, so you might want to push back beforehand. The more important questions are: one, how likely do you think they are to enforce it, and two, how important do you think it is to them in negotiating your new contract? For instance, are you one of their more important writers, and somehow your departure would draw readers/subscribers away from their company to your new company? If you left and wrote "Badonkadonk Suh's Personal Look at Late Hits: Kicking 'Em While They're Down!", would that do a lot of harm to their current business? On the other hand, are you're just anonymous writer number 30 who writes the monthly "Eye Gouging In The Scrum" column, and you're pretty replaceable by any Saints player?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 17:13
|
|