|
blarzgh posted:offer to buy his tires from him. Draw up a contract for purchase, sign it, hand them the money, and then walk over to the car and slash them while they're still on the car. Buy an identical set of wheels and tires and hire a racing team's pit crew. Slash the tires in front of the guy and have the pit crew replace them before he can call the police.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
joat mon posted:Buy an identical set of wheels and tires and hire a racing team's pit crew. Slash the tires in front of the guy and have the pit crew replace them before he can call the police. Purchase his exact vehicle, color, options, wheels - identical. Go over the entirety of the inside of this car, and adjust everything to match his car, like stains, scratches, seat position, etc. Then go tow his car to a discreet location, and replace it with the decoy car. Leave the keys to the new car in the door, so he can get it. He will drive the new car, never the wiser about the old switcheroo. Then, when you are finally alone with his old car, approach the tires slowly, knife in hand... HAve sex with the tires, and then slit their throats, leaving them to bleed compressed air out onto the dust.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Lord Waffle Beard posted:Whats the best way to legally get away with slashing someones tires? Do it late at night when ain't nobody looking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Hey NM, is this a normal judge/PD relationship? Can you request a change of public defenders? Because I wouldn't want to go to trial with an attorney who got beaten by the judge. If your judge beats the poo poo out of your defense attorney, should they recuse themselves from future proceedings in that case? What if it was a properly arranged duel and not just a beating?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Lord Waffle Beard posted:Whats the best way to legally get away with slashing someones tires? Act of war?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Lord Waffle Beard posted:Whats the best way to legally get away with slashing someones tires? Negotiate and pay for the right to slash the tires from the owner. For enough money, I'd certainly agree to let you can slash my tires. Be sure the car is in park and on private property owned by the vehicle owner or yourself. Also, make sure the agreement provides a means for the owner to install new tires immediately after you slash them--before consummating the contract, insist on buying new tires and pay for professionals to replace them; have the team ready to roll into action right after you slash the tires.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Since you didn't specify who the someone is, slash your own tires. If that doesn't satisfy you, have actual multiple personalities, have one of your other selves slash your own tires.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Can you request a change of public defenders? Because I wouldn't want to go to trial with an attorney who got beaten by the judge. Ashcans posted:If your judge beats the poo poo out of your defense attorney, should they recuse themselves from future proceedings in that case? What if it was a properly arranged duel and not just a beating? If it's part of a properly arranged duel, the defense attorney only has to do it for one month. VVVV Only if the courtroom's flag has gold fringe. joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Wouldn't it actually be "the Court's little bitch?" Or is that just in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Lord Waffle Beard posted:Whats the best way to legally get away with slashing someones tires? The funny thing about the "slash your own tires" answer is that something similar happened years ago in a family law dispute when the husband got a permit to demolish the family home. He then bulldozed the house. The cops told the wife it was a civil matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Dude still got arrested for knocking over a news crew's camera, though. (At least, assuming you mean the Raymond Kree Kirkman story.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
BgRdMchne posted:That criminal is already wasting county money by having a PD are you for real?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
White1ce posted:are you for real? I don't think he's saying that's what he believes, he's saying that's the attitude of a lot of judges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
White1ce posted:are you for real? Hang them all and let God sort it out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
At what point is a lease legally binding? I live in a student apartment complex in Kansas and I started the process of renewing my lease a few months ago. I was told that I would have to either have the deposit paid or a guarantor's signature by x date after signing the papaer work but I wasn't able to get either. I haven't heard from the leasing company until today when I got a call asking for either or. I said I wasn't able to get either and was told that I was legally bound to the lease. But if the lease requires a guarantor or a deposit then how can the lease be binding if I'm able to provide neither? Or am I wrong and have to figure this out somehow?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
What does the paperwork say?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
It doesn't seem to have a contingency for if the guarantor or deposit aren't secured. It just said that one or the other are required.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
It doesn't necessarily need to say, "IF YOU gently caress UP THIS ONE PART, HERE IS WHAT HAPPENS." Does it have a general statement of what happens if you violate the terms of the lease? My guess would be the option to evict at the least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Eviction with the full amount of the lease due.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
So there you go then. Just get your poo poo together and they'll probably not care, though. It's easier to cut a tenant slack than to be a strict dick about it and have to find a new tenant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
How is contract formed? Exchange of consideration with meeting of the minds, most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
I'm really struggling with this situation: O, the owner of Blackacre, attempts to convey his entire interest to L, but unbeknownst to either party the writing fails to meet the requirements set forth by the Statute of Frauds. Some time later, L leases the use of Blackacre to T. T takes possession and all is well for a time. However, the condition of the property worsens, and L violates the warranty of habitability by failing to make the repairs. As T is preparing to bring action against L, he discovers that O is still the owner of the property. Consequently, T brings actions against both L and O. O argues that he is not liable because both he and L were operating as if the transfer of Blackacre was successful. ---------------------------------- We represent T and my boss wants me to argue that O is a valid party to the suit. I am stuck. My inclination is that O is not a valid party for the following reasons: 1. When L occupied Blackacre, he and O entered into a tenancy at will. 2. When L entered into the lease with T, it was a sublease and not an assignment. 3. Thus, T is neither in privity of contract nor privity of estate with O and as such has no claim against him. PLEASE HELP!!! THANK YOU!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
IzzyFnStradlin posted:I'm really struggling with this situation: You're not getting the security deposit back
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
IzzyFnStradlin posted:I'm really struggling with this situation: When you say you represent T, do you mean as a lawyer or something? If so what the gently caress are you doing asking a comedy forum for help?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:When you say you represent T, do you mean as a lawyer or something? Hey everyone I invented a new element can you guys help me write the claims for the patent application? Here's what I have so far: quote:What is claimed is:
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
I think the correct answer is do your own homework (never been to law school, ianal)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
L is the owner because statute of frauds is only an affirmative defense which is owned by L and was not used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
In other words the conveyance was successful because not challenged by. L.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Unless you are within the statute of limitations for attacking the transfer, and can prove that it was in fact fraud, and sue separately to that effect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Hey everyone I invented a new element can you guys help me write the claims for the patent application? Claim a mixture containing at least xx percent of your new element. Otherwise you get rejected for trying to patent something that occurs naturally, even if in the heart of a supernova. Oh yeah - you also have to disclose how such a density is produced. woozle wuzzle posted:Unless you are within the statute of limitations for attacking the transfer, and can prove that it was in fact fraud, and sue separately to that effect. Standing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Claim a mixture containing at least xx percent of your new element. Otherwise you get rejected for trying to patent something that occurs naturally, even if in the heart of a supernova. Oh yeah - you also have to disclose how such a density is produced. Maybe patent law way more hilarious in ww2 http://www.google.com/patents/US3156523
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
IzzyFnStradlin posted:I'm really struggling with this situation: I won't answer your question, but I will tell you that the answer lies with the nature of the breach of warranty and not specifically the transfer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Maybe patent law way more hilarious in ww2 Yeah - now there's more easily searchable prior art. I've seen 35 usc 102 rejections of molecules having isotopes at certain locations because the non-isotopic molecule is already registered with a CAS accession number and the isotope is already within the natural abundance. These rejections are fairly recent though - isotopic molecule patents issued as recently as tenish years ago. Now you have to include a limitation like "wherein the population is isotopically enriched" or a percent enrichment or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Now you have to include a limitation like "wherein the population is isotopically enriched" or a percent enrichment or something. what.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Standing? I'm sure this varies wildly by state, as in some you need an order from God himself to glance in the direction of real estate. But in my state, anyone with a slight interest (including unsecured creditors) can attack a fraudulent transfer. A leased tenant certainly has an interest in determining the owner that has access to inspect their potty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Yeah - now there's more easily searchable prior art. I've seen 35 usc 102 rejections of molecules having isotopes at certain locations because the non-isotopic molecule is already registered with a CAS accession number and the isotope is already within the natural abundance. These rejections are fairly recent though - isotopic molecule patents issued as recently as tenish years ago. Now you have to include a limitation like "wherein the population is isotopically enriched" or a percent enrichment or something. I do not envy you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I'm sure this varies wildly by state, as in some you need an order from God himself to glance in the direction of real estate. But in my state, anyone with a slight interest (including unsecured creditors) can attack a fraudulent transfer. A leased tenant certainly has an interest in determining the owner that has access to inspect their potty. Same in Texas, except for unsecured creditors. Our Constitution governs homestead rights (along with a million other things).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:what. "I claim U-235." - rejected under 35 usc 102 because u-235 is in the naturally occurring population of uranium. "I claim a mixture comprising u-235 wherein the mixture is isotopically enriched." - rejected because enriched uranium is known but not because u-235 is in the naturally occurring population of uranium. blarzgh posted:I do not envy you. 
patentmagus fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Same in Texas, except for unsecured creditors. Our Constitution governs homestead rights (along with a million other things). The homestead exemption in Virginia is a whopping $5000. Plus Virginia is unique in the nation that the homestead is a lifetime total that can be exhausted (If you claim $2k now, you only have $3k left). The only successful attempt in the last decade to increase the limits was for personal firearms. It's a beacon of hope to everyone that hates poor non-whites.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
IzzyFnStradlin posted:I'm really struggling with this situation: What is this--some stupid bar prep question? It is that time of year. Does O claim he still owns the property? Is someone actually invoking the SoF? What is the time period involved--does adverse possession kick in? There are jillion ways around the SoF. There is case law out there, and there are nerdy other ways. This is the kind of situation that is only a legal question in an exam, not reality. madmario fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 20:30
|
|