|
Volmarias posted:I'm curious about the reasoning behind this. I cannot imagine that An Reasonable Ordinary Person would steal a car on their own, why would they need to warn about a bait car existing? To a) deter crime in the area and b) iron clad cases when they get arrested, especially since they are (on paper) looking for repeat offenders, i.e., career thiefs/criminals. I looked up DPD's program, they dont always put signs up. They also use more than cars as bait, they do bicycles, trailers, power washers. Basically high value targets of opportunity blarzgh posted:Another thing car thieves are known for: their credible narratives.
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:I'm in Texas. My landlord has an abandoned horse trailer on his property from a previous tenant. Is there a way to legally make it my trailer? i looked into getting an abandoned tractor off a friend's property, and here is what i remember of it, which I think is accurate enough to answer your question. long story short, not really 3 years to adverse claim abandoned property (that isn't land) If someone abandons a vehicle on your property, you can call your local government, likely the police, to come remove it and impound it and then they'll do whatever with it, likely sell it at auction You can also apply for a permit to depose of it, there's procedures for all of that, but you only get title to the trailer for the purpose of junking it. your landlord may be able to claim it by setting up a scheme whereby he charges to store it, liens it, sues and gets judgment, executes on the trailer and buys it at auction or something similar. Probably want to talk to a lawyer about it. might cost more than the trailer is worth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
Real trials aren't as exciting to watch as TV trials because lawyers don't get to exposition with the audience like a TV show
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2024 16:14
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:A question from reddit, UCC 2-601 gives you the right to accept the lot or deny the lot, or accept partial (as long as commercial reasonable efforts are made to not lessen the value of the non accepted lot) it doesn't mean you get to keep the poo poo for free. you still have to pay. you just dont have to accept and cant be forced to accept non conforming goods. He's just not obligated to pay to send it back. if they send him prepaid return packaging and he didnt send it that would be conversion/theft. companies let you keep poo poo because it costs more to get items back sometimes then then make on selling them and other poo poo, its not because legally you get to keep whatever shows up at your doorstep
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:He already paid for the lot in advance. Then the company made a delivery in fulfilment of their deal, and it was nonconforming, but he decided to accept it in full anyway. you could be, if they wanted to go after you for it. but they don't want to. they just eat it at a loss. the point of the UCC and similar contract laws is that people get the benefit of the bargain - you get what you pay for, and you get paid for what you deliver. Your friend paid in advance for one unit. He got two units. He does not get the second unit for free unless the seller decides not to pursue getting the unit back. The seller has the right to demand the return of the property, the seller has to pay the cost associated with returning the product (or risk forfeiting the product), and if your friend refused/ignored them they could go after him for it. (subject to a poo poo load of caveats) There are various remedies under the UCC and contract law for all sorts of poo poo. the main goal is that everyone receives the benefit of the bargain
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:Is there a difference between a single package with 2 PS5s and two separate packages with a single PS5? When does it change from a single non-conforming lot to two different lots. If you want to do business with the company in the future you'll want to cooperate, but at some point getting random packages becomes unordered merchandise right? With the assumption that removing a single grain does not cause a heap to become a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times that only one grain remains: is it still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2024 20:24
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Is it consent if you don't know what you are consenting to? What got me thinking about it was a horror movie I watched where college kids went into a haunted house and started getting killed off. I thought the twist was going to be that they didn't actually kill anybody and it was all part of the show (like the movie April Fool's Day). In this case, no, I don't know where you legally draw the line on consent and that is why I am asking. Is it somewhere between a guy in a clown mask saying "boo" and believing that you are in actual danger of death or severe bodily harm? That is why I used the real world example of getting chased by a chainsaw at a haunted house. Most people have no idea that you can remove the blade from a chainsaw, so I think that it is reasonable for them to think they may be in actual danger even though they are at a haunted house. You can consent to things without knowing all the details. A suit would be judged on a reasonable factors based on the totality of the situation. You typically consent to a certain type of experience, ie, jump frights, flashing lights and eerie music, etc., but no physical contact. Being afraid is an expected result, look up assumption of risk and similar subjects if you want to know more. But if they hit you or something violent like that, or prevented you from leaving, that’s be a violation of consent etc
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 03:10
|
|
|
statistical evidence is not trustworthy enough to convict people mentally unwell people cannot be trusted to testify honestly forced/false confessions are common cops making poo poo up/exploiting situations for personal gain rather than any pursuit of justice doctors/experts are often wrong doctors/experts can see an answer to a question and then get blinded trying to prove that answer correct rather than answer the question itself etc
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
joat mon posted:https://twitter.com/colachicago/status/1786401825920278978 https://www.thecolacorporation.com/collections/relaxed-fit-tees/products/adidas-uzi?variant=47849584099635 i dont think they care
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 23:33
|
|