|
my kinda ape posted:This company has over 300,000 feedback on Gunbroker (by far the most volume of any seller I've seen and not just some ancient fudd) so they probably do have the money to sue me if they wished. I think the people saying they probably sent the gun as a reaction to the chargeback are probably right. It's possible they have so much going on that someone tried to figure out why the gun had been sitting there so long and looked up the email I'd sent with my license and just sent it without realizing the transaction had been disputed but I think the former is more likely. I'm just gonna go in and talk to my bank this afternoon if I have time and see what they think. Having the money to sue you and actually bothering are two different things, if the purchase was under like $2000 there's no way they can use their own lawyer's time and recover more than they spent. There's no harm in waiting to see if they ever even send a nastygram, and more likely they send it all to a collections company to nag you, which these days are easier to ignore than ever. At my company I stiffed an ISP for $30,000 because they ignored my cancellation request (they acknowledged they received it but forgot to shut it off and later tried to say I didn't use the right terminology so it didn't count; our general counsel agreed I was in the right) but long story short I programmed our phone system's IVR to recognize their bill collectors and place them into a hold queue that never actually ends. Now it's been 6 years and they're passed the statute of limitations to sue us.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
I just want to repeat myself because lots of people don't understand how credit disputes work. The gun merchant didn't lose any money. They at most received notification (potentially by snail mail) that a charge was disputed, and they likely replied with proof of delivery. The money OP is seeing is just a credit from the bank and will vanish when the dispute closes. This can take a long time, which is why he should just tell them he received the item so they can close the dispute faster, but it doesn't change that he'll pay his bank back eventually. I know Lowtax years ago was claiming that malicious goons were buying forums poo poo and then stealing his money by issuing chargebacks, but the dude is full of poo poo and that's not how chargebacks work. The banks just credit the cardholder and only take money from the merchants after they investigate and only under a narrowly defined set of circumstances. Buyer's regret is NOT one of these circumstances. They all involve some sort of fraud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Having the money to sue you and actually bothering are two different things, if the purchase was under like $2000 there's no way they can use their own lawyer's time and recover more than they spent. Some lawyers are paid salaries rather than hourly, which makes this kind of advice less useful
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:I know Lowtax years ago was claiming that malicious goons were buying forums poo poo and then stealing his money by issuing chargebacks, but the dude is full of poo poo and that's not how chargebacks work. The banks just credit the cardholder and only take money from the merchants after they investigate and only under a narrowly defined set of circumstances. Buyer's regret is NOT one of these circumstances. They all involve some sort of fraud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
You can still turn a salary into an hourly rate and decide if that's a good use of their time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
Companies will fight small cases sometimes in order to not create precedent . Or sometime the people in the company will personally hate you and do it for spite Spite is a powerful motivator
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
homullus posted:Some lawyers are paid salaries rather than hourly, which makes this kind of advice less useful Yeah time is still time no matter how you're paid. Having your in house lawyer deal with some stupid bs rather than dealing with something more important doesn't really matter how he's paid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:You can still turn a salary into an hourly rate and decide if that's a good use of their time. Which is a better use of time, paying [computed hourly rate] and earning nothing, or paying [computed hourly rate] and earning some amount of money? Yes, clearly, there are situations where the task(s) before your salaried lawyer are worth more than the $2000 case, and the task(s) will constitute full-time work. There are also times when the lawyer is not fully occupied, or when the company simply has a policy of vigorous pursuit with these things. The takeaway here is that there is no amount so small that you are "safe."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
For example companies will fight products liability cases tooth and nail many times way way beyond whatever the actual verdict exposure is
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:This is not accurate as far as the forums store is concerned. That's interesting then. How does it work for the forums? Is the difference because the forum doesn't have a physical product that is delivered? Everything I read about disputes described it as a process that usually ends with the bank saying "tough luck" unless active fraud has occured.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:That's interesting then. How does it work for the forums? Is the difference because the forum doesn't have a physical product that is delivered? Everything I read about disputes described it as a process that usually ends with the bank saying "tough luck" unless active fraud has occured. You just send the bank the user's post history and they freeze their account.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Spite is a powerful motivator For further reading, see any family law case ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:For further reading, see any family law case ever. From the man's side. I didnt see many women motivated solely by spite. Maybe it happens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
euphronius posted:From the man's side. I didnt see many women motivated solely by spite. Maybe it happens. Plenty of women are spite driven as well. It’s not something unique to one gender.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
I was saying specifically in family law .
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Oh yeah that almost never happens 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
I think you are in such a hurry to zealously defend men that you have neglected to read my words carefully
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:That's interesting then. How does it work for the forums? Is the difference because the forum doesn't have a physical product that is delivered? Everything I read about disputes described it as a process that usually ends with the bank saying "tough luck" unless active fraud has occured. Even for a physical store, Amex at least pulls the money from the merchant immediately. I do think the poster is going to lose the dispute unless the merchant fails to reply, but there really isn't any harm in waiting to see what happens if they want to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:That's interesting then. How does it work for the forums? Is the difference because the forum doesn't have a physical product that is delivered? Everything I read about disputes described it as a process that usually ends with the bank saying "tough luck" unless active fraud has occured.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:At my company I stiffed an ISP for $30,000 because they ignored my cancellation request (they acknowledged they received it but forgot to shut it off and later tried to say I didn't use the right terminology so it didn't count; our general counsel agreed I was in the right) but long story short I programmed our phone system's IVR to recognize their bill collectors and place them into a hold queue that never actually ends. Now it's been 6 years and they're passed the statute of limitations to sue us. If this is true you are truly a hero
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
I need some "how to pick a lawyer" advice. My sister-in-law's husband is probably going to leave her. He's a totally useless dipwad, she was pretty awful to him, both of them are terrible communicators, both are emotionally stunted. It's a sad situation with plenty of blame to go around. There are complications - they have an elementary-aged child, and she's seriously physically disabled (wheelchair, progressive neurological disorder). It's unclear what the husband's future plans are. He seems to want a no-lawyer, no-expenses divorce; frankly I suspect he sort of hopes he can just leave and the whole marriage will just go away in the manner of Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy. I'm not sure what his custody intentions are. Their assets are modest at best. Still, while I'm not looking to put the screws to this guy out of spite I would like to see that my sister-in-law and nephew at least don't get abandoned without a dime when she has no income due to physical inability to work. Obviously, this will in fact require a lawyer. The sister-in-law is as passive as a blanket, so it's likely that she will sit around as things fall apart unless someone in the family (unfortunately, me) can basically hand her a specific to-do list. So here's the question: how does one go about picking a divorce lawyer who is competent, not sleazy, not stupendously expensive, not going to goad the spouses into a protracted and unnecessarily bitter dispute in order to enrich said lawyer, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
They absolutely need lawyers due to what may be (may be ) life time child support issues My comment is made with Pa law in mind. The way to pick a lawyer is get one from the county the marriage is in (sometimes a hard question ) and just make like 3 appointments to get a feeling. If things are geographically complicated go find a lawyer in the town the client is in. The important aspect is as much as possible you want your family law attorney to know the judge who will be on the case. This is important. Family law attorneys should not charge anything or very much (100$) to sit with you for 30 mins to tell you what they can do. Some lawyers are very impressive people and you can tell quickly they’d do a good job
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
It would be pretty unethical for a lawyer to needlessly extend a dispute in order to rack up billables. I mean I know it happens but in small or medium town situations … I mean I never came across a notable situation of it in many years of family law. Lawyers don’t do family law for $$$$$$$ except at the high end which you are not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
Like Euph said, just meet with a few and get a feel. The other thing you can do is call a criminal law attorney, or someone else who does not do family law and ask them who they would recommend for family law. Attorneys know who is good and who is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
To be clear, the sister-in-law is the one with disabilities, right, and not the kid?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 01:27
|
|
i like nice words
|
The last noun before she is referring to the child
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:I need some "how to pick a lawyer" advice. It seems like you're trying to lead a horse to water.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:To be clear, the sister-in-law is the one with disabilities, right, and not the kid? euphronius posted:The last noun before she is referring to the child I apologize for the sloppy writing - the sister-in-law is disabled. While the condition is hereditary, it's autosomal recessive and the child is unaffected. That's why my instant advice was "no you REALLY REALLY don't want to try this alone" since spousal and child support are likely to have very serious implications. The state is Georgia. I don't live there, so more or less I'm just passing on advice. Thanks especially for the advice about the lawyer being familiar with the judge, and the idea of asking a non-family-law attorney for recommendations. No slight to anyone intended with the "someone who won't drag out the case for fees" remark; I'm sure that's very rare and mostly confined to spiteful spouses with huge piles of money. You do occasionally hear the second-hand horror story, so if it was a thing I wanted to make sure they avoid it. e: pentyne posted:It seems like you're trying to lead a horse to water. Very possibly. Still, it's family and I hate for the kid to suffer more than they're already going to. So I am in fact going to show that horse where the creek is, and where it goes from there will at least involve a clear conscience on my part. Captain von Trapp fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jun 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:The state is Georgia. Lotta different counties ranging from one stoplight county seats to large cities. The “local lawyer” is going to be even more important in say Mitchell County than Fulton or DeKalb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
They're in Forsyth, but they didn't get married there. Does this make a difference? Beats me. Beats them too, I'm sure. One more reason to tell her to find someone who knows the answer, perhaps some kind of person who knows about the law, who maybe even makes a living on knowing about the law...
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:They're in Forsyth, but they didn't get married there. Does this make a difference? Beats me. Beats them too, I'm sure. One more reason to tell her to find someone who knows the answer, perhaps some kind of person who knows about the law, who maybe even makes a living on knowing about the law... Venue for a divorce case is set in the Georgia constitution. She should talk to a family lawyer in Forsyth county. Hell, maybe these guys (disclaimer: I know nothing about them): https://www.siemonlawfirm.com/cumming-divorce-lawyers/ quote:SECTION II.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
A couple of my neighbors and I have been informally discussing having a logger come in and clear out our land so we can get our mountain views back. I have about 4 acres to clear, while other 2 have about 10 acres each. Is this a bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
daslog posted:A couple of my neighbors and I have been informally discussing having a logger come in and clear out our land so we can get our mountain views back. I have about 4 acres to clear, while other 2 have about 10 acres each. Is this a bad idea? Are you going to replant those trees anywhere? If not, you're reducing the already shrinking carbon sink that we have to help stave off climate change just so you can have a better view.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Are you going to replant those trees anywhere? If not, you're reducing the already shrinking carbon sink that we have to help stave off climate change just so you can have a better view. Yeah, it's definitely this guy's fault for logging an acre, and totally not the fault of companies like British Petroleum, dumping millions of gallons of oil into the gulf because they are lazy. 10 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions, but you want to blame some poster who wants to see a mountain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
daslog posted:A couple of my neighbors and I have been informally discussing having a logger come in and clear out our land so we can get our mountain views back. I have about 4 acres to clear, while other 2 have about 10 acres each. Is this a bad idea? There are definitely states, cities, and counties that limit your ability to remove trees from your land. A logging company might know the laws, and might tell you, but they also might not, so probably check on that. Also, strongly suggest you speak with experts on this, as roots systems and what not can be holding up a hill, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:10 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions, but you want to blame some poster who wants to see a mountain. It's supposedly 100 companies, not 10. https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...-climate-change
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
daslog posted:A couple of my neighbors and I have been informally discussing having a logger come in and clear out our land so we can get our mountain views back. I have about 4 acres to clear, while other 2 have about 10 acres each. Is this a bad idea? How are we poor, destitute attorneys supposed to make any money if you and your neighbors are working out shared issues reasonably like functioning adults? What the gently caress is wrong with you
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
He asked whether it was a good or bad idea. I asked for further information to evaluate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
Is it a good idea or bad idea for me to burn my neighbor's house down Well, depending on your neighbor's carbon footprint, and whether or not he is able to escape the burning house...
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
nm posted:There are definitely states, cities, and counties that limit your ability to remove trees from your land. A logging company might know the laws, and might tell you, but they also might not, so probably check on that. Aside from preventing you from removing trees that are preventing a landslide or are homes to endangered species, what other reasons might the city/state/county have for preventing you from cutting down your own trees on your own property?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:34
|
|
