|
The suckee could sue under unjust enrichment to get his money back from non sucker. If no money changed hands then there is no contract because enforcing it would be against public policy and you can not get specific performance of a service contract usually. Suckee might be able to show some reliance damages but that's doubtful.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
areyoucontagious posted:Yes, thank you. Did you not see the humor in a contract involving my friend sucking my balls resulting in the potential for real, monetary damages? Given that we had to make the assumption that sex work is legal to get to that point, no, it's a standard contracts question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
If the suck-er was a (legal) prostitute, would the UCC apply?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
joat mon posted:If the suck-er was a (legal) prostitute, would the UCC apply? UCC doesn't apply to contracts for services, so no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:UCC doesn't apply to contracts for services, so no. Unless you find a court whose flag lacks a fringe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Like if Suckee spent $800.00 driving to Sucker's based on the reasonable expectation of the event happening, and it did not, and Suckee communicated to Sucker that he was going to have to spend $800 to drive to Sucker's, I could maybe see a small claims court awarding Suckee $800.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
I think it's all fine, as long as the cause of action is Loss of Consortium
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
I thought this was contract law, not divorce court
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Loss of Consortium is a tort remedy. Hey-oo
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Tortfeasor? But I hardly knew her!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Like if Suckee spent $800.00 driving to Sucker's based on the reasonable expectation of the event happening, and it did not, and Suckee communicated to Sucker that he was going to have to spend $800 to drive to Sucker's, I could maybe see a small claims court awarding Suckee $800. I would say your method of determining damages is borderline fallacious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
So . . . what you are saying is that they are borderline meritorious? Great that's all I need. Think of this Suckee: Please suck my dick for $1,000.00. Sucker: OK, but you have to drive her. Suckee: It will cost me $800 to drive to your house. Sucker: Do it and I'll suck for $1,000 Suckee: Ok, I am going to do it. I will pay $800 to drive to your house. Sucker: OK. ~ days pass ~ Suckee: OK I am here I spent $800 to drive here. Sucker: No deal go away. EDIT ARGH CONFUSED BY A PUN euphronius fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I would say your method of determining damages is borderline fellatious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
euphronius posted:So . . . what you are saying is that they are borderline meritorious? Great that's all I need. You can talk about convincing someone about how your argument is meritorious all you want, but this hypothetical is not about your abilities as a cunning linguist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
. Thanks. I'm not actively being sued (yet) but I understand the risk. Oh My Science fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Oh My Science posted:I just quit my job, without giving notice, and my employer threatened to sue me for "incomplete projects" which were never explicitly part of my contract / hiring package. Having never encountered this before I don't know how to respond to this. Some key points taken from the OP: AreYouIn posted:This thread is for your questions that involve legal advice of some sort. This thread is very helpful for explaining general legal concepts that might apply to your circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Oh My Science posted:. BC Bar Assocation posted:If you quit your job, the Act doesn’t require you to give your employer any notice that you’re going to quit. But your employment contract (oral or written) may require you to do so. Generally, employees who have higher-level jobs must give some notice; if they don’t, their employer may sue them (however, this is a very rare event). The amount of notice depends on several things including the type of job, how long they had the job, and general labour market conditions. Even if you don’t have to give notice, it is usually a good idea to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Ha, I know people (including myself) who have not been paid excess vacation pay within 6 days. Within 6 weeks, maybe. Still, got it in the end, and wasn't desperate for it at the time, so no harm done I guess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
This is a purely hypothetical situation that I've always been curious about. Sorry if this is too long and dense, but I'm trying to give as many details as possible, I'm not sure what specific details may alter the legality so I will try to include everything - Hypothetical setting and year - CT, USA, 2010 A person (age 21) is sitting in a car with the ignition off in a Barnes & Noble parking lot during business hours. Cops pull up and say that they got a report that someone driving a car matching the description was driving erratically. Person offers to take a breathalyzer, cops decline (the same officer had previously arrested the person twice in the past 2 weeks for heroin possession, so they know/suspect the cause of intoxication will not show up on a breathalyzer)Officer demands the person step out of the car and perform a field sobriety test, which the officer determines has been failed. Person is cuffed and sits in the police car for ~40 minutes while other officers show up and search the car for contraband, nothing is found. Person is brought back to the police station where a body search is performed and 1 bag of heroin is found. Person then urinates in a cup for the record, and is booked with the charges of possession and DUI. Total time in police station is under 2 hours, and the person is told they can either have someone come pick them up, or they can use the police phone to call a taxi, as long as the person tells the taxi the destination address is home (in this case, the persons parents house). Person asks the officer "Can't I just go somewhere else?" and the response is something like "I don't give a poo poo, as long as I think the taxi is taking you home" Taxi arrives and person changes the destination to a Walmart in a nearby town, where they steal a box cutter and attempt suicide. They are then rushed to the hospital and stay in the ER for 3 days. So my question in this hypothetical situation - when an officer determines someone is intoxicated and is clearly in a state of extreme emotional distress, do they have any legal obligation to either hold the person in custody until they are of sound mind, or at least until the effects of the intoxication wares off? The effects which caused the person to fail the field sobriety test were definitely still apparent when the person was released. Had this situation went worse ( if the person died from the suicide attempt) would the family have any legal recourse against the police department?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
No and no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
areyoucontagious posted:Yes, thank you. Did you not see the humor in a contract involving my friend sucking my balls resulting in the potential for real, monetary damages? Umm, no, unless you're a sovereign citizen and your friend lives on a boat. edited: for humor Oh My Science posted:I just quit my job, without giving notice, and my employer threatened to sue me for "incomplete projects" which were never explicitly part of my contract / hiring package. Having never encountered this before I don't know how to respond to this. You don't have to suck his balls or pay $800, if that's what your asking. patentmagus fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
joat mon posted:No and no. I agree
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
So, I got a speeding ticket today while driving through Georgia, back home to Florida. Can anyone give me advice on contesting the ticket? I've seen a lot of those advertisements for law firms that say they will fight traffic tickets and you don't need to pay if they lose the case, but I have no idea how legitimate something like that is, or if there's some kind of catch. Are law firms like that respectable enough to trust? If they were to win, would I end up paying them more than I would be paying for the ticket? If the answer to that is yes, would I, as someone who does not study law, have any chance of winning if I were to attempt to fight it myself?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Usually firms that work on contingency do one of two things: 1. Only take cases that are a 100% slam dunk. 2. Charge an obscene percentage (think 40-50%) to cover the cases that aren't. Though, being in Canada, I never saw lawyers challenging fines that weren't like 1000+$.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Also, take the whole "no fee unless you win" thing with a grain of salt. Typically a settlement or plea bargain counts as a "win", so if you do decide to hire a lawyer be sure to discuss what your expectations are. Typically with tickets it's not worth it to hire a lawyer, unless it's something severe that counts as a misdemeanor, you have a ton of previous tickets and your license is in jeopardy, or you have a job that involves driving that may be affected by it. Most of the time if it's your first ticket in a number of years you can take a class and have it taken off your record, call the court and ask about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Were you actually speeding?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Were you actually speeding? If he's like 99% of the goons who ask that question, yes, yes he was, but the officer had his hat on crooked when he wrote the ticket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:If he's like 99% of the goons who ask that question, yes, yes he was, but the officer had his hat on crooked when he wrote the ticket. It was a gold-fringed patrol car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:It was a gold-fringed patrol car. He's a sovereign citizen of the Shire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
I'm kind of curious about the cute "hypothetical" thing that most people do. I assume that it's pretty pointless, because most judges aren't retarded and a story that goes "what if my friend did x" that just happens to exactly fit the case seems like something that could easily be used as evidence. Is that correct? Is there any situation (criminal or civil) where wording something as "what if my friend did x" vs. "I did x" would make a significant difference, given that the facts are specific enough that it could easily be linked with whatever events were the subject of the court case?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
If you're talking about the use of hypotheticals in this thread, a lot of that's because the lawyers posting have to avoid unauthorized practice/malpractice/ethics-type things and any perception of an attorney-client relationship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
DuckConference posted:I'm kind of curious about the cute "hypothetical" thing that most people do. I assume that it's pretty pointless, because most judges aren't retarded ... But sometimes they do a fine impression. However, your friend is wondering as follows: DuckConference posted:Is there any situation (criminal or civil) where wording something as "what if my friend did x" vs. "I did x" would make a significant difference, given that the facts are specific enough that it could easily be linked with whatever events were the subject of the court case? You should certainly ask your lawyer about this. More specifically, ask your lawyer about situations where a person believes they engaged an attorney and thereby created an attorney-client relationship. Your lawyer might tell you that by using a hypothetical you may be evidencing that you have no such belief and that the client's belief is often dispositive in finding an attorney-client relationship. Your lawyer might also mention that an attorney-client relationship, or belief thereof, is often a key element in establishing an ethics violation, a malpractice charge, or practicing without a license.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
This is an "am I going to get sued" question. Jurisdiction is either California or Nevada, but it's probably a US thing really. I've got a new band, and we'd really like to call ourselves The Soft Machines. Problem is, there was some terrible hippie band in the 60s called Soft Machine in England. Will we get a cease and desist for running around releasing records and touring with this name? If we do, should we fight it and do you think we'd win? What makes me wonder is that two bands I'm friendly with had to change their names because of similar nonsense (one of them was called master/slave, for instance, and apparently yoko ono had a song called that.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
That reminds me of a weird question I had been thinking about. If everybody in a band is dead and they're not selling records any more, is there any legal hurdle to another band using their name? Could an existing artist sell records under the name Robert Johnson or whatever? Or is there always an estate holder that retains rights to the name of the artist/band?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:This is an "am I going to get sued" question. Jurisdiction is either California or Nevada, but it's probably a US thing really. You should certainly retain a trademark attorney if you want a legal opinion from a lawyer you've engaged. That said, this is a fight that would most likely come down to money and your will to fight. If the '60s band has not been using their trademark then it has probably either lapsed or is no longer valid due to lack of use. However, if you do get a C&D then you'll rack up legal charges for dealing with it. If you really really love the name then your lawyer may recommend filing a US trademark application for it. It will take a half year to issue, maybe more, but if you get a registered mark then the other side's position is considerably weakened. As for jurisdiction, your lawyer may tell you about what sorts of activities open you up for getting sued in any jurisdiction. Internet sales, for one, can have you responding to lawsuits in Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Given the length of their Wikipedia entry, I'd say tread carefully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_Machine
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Yes, they were pretty influential. Honestly, calling yourself "Soft Machine" is like calling yourself "Wire" or "Colosseum" or something; you might not be familiar with the band, but music critics will be, and they'll see you as writing a check on someone else's work. Not to mention the Burroughs reference has its own baggage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Have you considered "Rage Against the Soft Machine Metallica" instead?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
I don't think Los Beatlos Cubanos are using their name anymore either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
The list of members through out the years of Soft Machines is huge. Have you considered calling your band The Micro Soft Machines? I can't think of any legal baggage that might come from a name like that. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:21
|
|