|
SnipeShow posted:Canada: Can I be refused service for not leaving my backpack at the front of an unattended store? Yes.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2010 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Javid posted:Oregon: FWIW in Canada the contract you'd probably be entitled to recission of the contract, and you'd be covered by consumer protection laws. Check consumer protection laws in your state; often they're broad enough to catch even "private" sales, and if they do, selling a car without disclosing it's been badly damaged is very likely deceptive practice giving rise to damages.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2010 03:25
|
|
|
kalonji posted:Are you serious, signing up for a bank account using a fake name is fraud. Even if you never use the card or pick it up. nope, unless they rely on the false information and use it to forward you credit, it;s not fraud, and they can't prove it. you have no idea what you're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 06:17
|
|
|
kalonji posted:E: OP you should follow the sound legal advice on Something Awful forums, creating a fictitious identity to apply for a bank account to get free movie tickets is a great idea. They will never be able to prove it, you will not be charged or have to spend thousands of dollars defending yourself against serious criminal allegations. yeah there's on-point case law that says what I'm sayin so unless you can point me to a better authority than "the rcmp website" keep on stampin your feet I'll keep on keepin' on signing up for stuff under a false name is not a super great idea, but it's not fraud unless the false information is actually relied upon
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
keep in mind, he didn't get a bank account with this information, he got a scene card or points card, which anyone can get and where the only relevant material is a phone number and/or address. if he doesn't go sign up for a chequing account with the bank and just tells them to go away he's fine anyways case is r v. winning, [1973] O.J. No. 461. it's 1973 from OCA and is still good law unless there's some kind of statute i'm not sure about which is entirely possible (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:a checking account in the name of Santos L. Halper. yeah don't do that
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2010 00:19
|
|
|
Part of Everything posted:I live in Ontario, Canada. I've been renting an apartment for the last 5 years. When I first signed the lease, it stated that utilities were all-inclusive, with no extenuating circumstances listed. What you described would contravene the residential tenancies act in my neck of the woods. I am not familiar with Ontario's, but I imagine it is functionally similar. I took a glance at it here. this would seem to apply to your case. There may be a residential tenancies office you can call at the government who can advise you, but just at a glance I don't think they have any right to demand the additional fee. Disputing the fee does not give them grounds to evict you; if it works there how it does here, they would send you a eviction notice for nonpayment of rent, you would send back a dispute letter, and then they would have to take you to provincial court or a residential tenancies dispute office to explain why they should get the additional money from you. I do not live in Ontario and actually kind of hate it so take this all with a grain of salt
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
The law on exclusion of "bad" evidence has changed significantly in like the last year in Canada. R v. Grant and R v. Harrison both deal with the exclusion of evidence obtained unconstitutionally and significantly broaden the admissibility of tainted evidence. The test is basically how badly the administration / repute of justice would be tarnished by the evidence being thrown out weighed against policy concerns and how egregious the police actions were. On the facts as they were related in the thread earlier I would not bet on whatever was seized being excluded joat mon posted:questions Don't answer this stuff terrorist ambulance fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Jul 14, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:I again appreciate the response, and I wasn't trying to sound like I don't appreciate any (useful) advice that people post, whether it's what I want to hear or not. It just seemed like (Alchenar) was not contributing at all, only urging me to shut up because the crown prosecutors could be reading this very page, or somebody could connect some very vague dots. No, they're right. There's no information we can give you besides what you already know now -- your friend needs a good lawyer yesterday. You can't give us any information that will help, and can very possibly offer information that will hurt your friend.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:The question ends up being whether such a duty exists. It's not a slam dunk case, but it's one of the more direct ways of getting any kind of substantial money out of GM. There's probably some kind of statutory implied warranty that goods will be fit for their intended purpose when sold in a consumer context terrorist ambulance fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jul 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
If your school has a law school there's probably a legal information clinic or three that may be able to help
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2010 20:18
|
|
|
"Consent" or "it wasn't actually a fight" or something similar gets argued all the time and is not really a successful defense. Two guys will get drunk and fight over a girl or something and smash up a bar, and then subsequently make up and act like it wasn't a problem. In my jurisdiction they'll just get charged with something else
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
Biskies posted:Ah yes, I get it. I guess I am rather dense sometimes. I have no doubt at all the experiences you described were demeaning and awful, but you're very likely to be coming into an enormous windfall very soon, so there's that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:Thanks for that. It seems that is probably accurate. I think I found the "how" of serving papers and failed to check on "who" could serve because I figured since I wasn't represented that I would be included. It seems that sending certified mail is a valid way though, so I'll just do that next time. So when you're confronted with the reality that you can't even do basic procedural stuff properly does it make you rethink your windmill tilting or is part of your pathology the ability to double down regardless
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2010 02:10
|
|
|
Necessity is a common law defense that would probably apply in that case if it went down exactly as you described depending on how you're being charged it's probably not worth fighting though
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2010 01:47
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:Example: I jaywalk and a car that I hadn't seen has to hit his brakes fairly quickly. He is angry so he parks his car somewhere and then pursues me and beats me up. The defence of necessity in most jurisdictions is narrowly defined and difficult to satisfy, there's no "should mostly vindicate" about his story. He needs a lawyer and you really need to stop giving advice about stuff you don't even have a good layman's grasp of
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
Berbil Snatch posted:I'm in Texas. Knowing nothing about Texas law, I would advise you to call the city. They either have inspectors, or can direct you to some sort of health / safety board to have someone come out and take a look at your place. In my jurisdiction, what you described would render a dwelling uninhabitable, and a landlord who refused to fix it would get some free sex from the government (and not the good kind). Call around. If the city can't help you out, you may have other remedies (ie: where I'm from, some common law re: contracts is preserved by statute, and you may be able to make an argument re: frustration or breach of implied warranty), but I'd try the city first. terrorist ambulance fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Sep 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 00:34
|
|
|
Robo Olga posted:Do you mind posting a bit more information about this? We are going through a similar situation in California, in our case it is a problem with the circuit panel in the house. We have talked to the city building inspector and he advised us that he will have to shut off our electricity if the issue isn't fixed. The landlord is refusing to do anything so we are going to have to break the lease and leave. The landlord is threatening to keep our security deposit if we do. Well where I am, there's minimum health and safety standards for all dwellings intended for human use. There has to be a kitchen, there has to be power and water, there has to be a toilet, there has to be somewhere to wash, there can't be vermin, there can't be large amounts of mold or similar environmental hazards, etc. So if you're in a situation where your house has fallen below minimum health and safety standards and you rent, and your landlord isn't doing anything for you, you would call the city. They would come out, inspect the place, and then issue an order if the house does fall below minimum health & safety standards. If the landlord ignores this order, they get hosed. Health services doesn't play around. HOWEVER, I'm in Canada, in a province that has relatively robust tenant rights. Your statutory rights and the capacity / willingness of the enforcement agencies responsible for the protection of those rights very likely differ from where I am. The other guy suggested the tenants' union -- if something like that exists where you are, that'd probably be a good start. Off the top of my head what's happening to you sounds illegal and unfair, but...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 04:46
|
|
|
Also I don't know why dudes are telling you he's "probably" judgement proof. If he's got a car, house, tools, or a bank account with anything in it he might have enough to execute against and go a fair distance towards satisfying any judgement. He's in the military so I guess no guarantee on that stuff, but it's not like you got stabbed up by a hobo or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
Also McDonalds served it at 90C which is too hot to drink or really do anything with other than spill on yourself and cause skin-melting burns in literal seconds. And had settled literally hundreds of claims by people who had done exactly that. But bluh bluh trial lawyers sucking the life out of our honourable doctors etc
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
carlcarlson posted:My friend currently works for a super awesome company, and is possibly going to receive an offer of employment from a client of her current employer. Her prospective employer would continue to do business with her current employer in the same capacity that they are now, so her current employer would not be losing any business if she was to take the job. The confidentiality agreement is fine. The common law regarding negative covenants like that is pretty restrictive here; I'm like 90% sure that wouldn't pass muster in my jurisdiction. Too punitive, too one sided, too ambiguous. Employment law varies hugely from place to place even within the same country though so: not legal advice, not intended to be relied upon, should not be relied upon
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
I have no idea what the rules of court are. But here if you filed a reply, written in crayon, that said "I deny this claim. I don't owe them any money. gently caress them, gently caress this honourable court, gently caress this gay earth" there'd still have to be a mandatory settlement conference, after which there'd have to be at least one or two more hearings before they could even get judgement, after which they'd have to enforce the judgement. If you make any attempt at all to defend it, it'll probably be more expensive to get the money than it's worth for them. However, if you do throw up a bunch of bullshit meritless roadblocks and they do get judgement, they can also get costs (where you have to pay their lawyer's fees), which would probably be well more than what the claim is worth. So ideally you want to make it hard enough that they settle, but not so hard that you get hit with costs. See if maybe there's a local poverty law clinic, advocate, or student run clinic around that can help you out. This is the kind of poo poo they do all day every day. Whatever you do don't take my awful worthless and not legal advice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
DuckConference posted:Thanks for the link, it turns out I'm quite wrong. Both in that case and the Karroll v. Silver Star Mountain Resorts Ltd. case the reference, there is some pretty clear (at least in my opinion) negligence on the part of the operator but apparently the waiver still prevents any claims against the operator. Liability waivers have some weight, but they're not bulletproof. A lot of different factors can be considered in determining whether they'll be a defence to a claim. If you're asking because you broke your leg skiing or whatever and are wondering if you can sue, you should talk to a lawyer. If you're asking out of general curiousity, the answer to whether a liability waiver can be a defence to a claim is "maybe".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
Without looking at any of the relevant statutes, regulations, or bylaws, I'd be extremely surprised if you could shoot bows within the city limits without any kind of permit or restriction
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Check whatever the appropriate consumer protection statutes are for the UK; contract common law in the area of consumer goods has been displaced for the most part by broad and generous consumer protection statutes in most places. There's very likely a section of whatever the act is that requires goods to be merchantable or reasonably fit for the purpose for which they're sold. A computer breaking 5 times in a year and a half probably qualifies, but I don't really know.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
That's probably not the case, but I have absolutely no knowledge of the statute
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Yo if you're talking to a lawyer just collect as much information and evidence as you can and present it to him. Be thorough and detailed in recounting what you know, and he'll help you parse what is useful or not. To be honest a lot of the stuff you're saying is probably not relevant or helpful, but some of it might be. Not really a lot we can do to help you. Motor vehicle accidents are awful the same way most personal injury stuff is -- usually a little bumper contact isn't a huge deal, but sometimes you'll get a guy who's like blargh I was going to be a vetrinarian trauma surgeon lawyer astronaut but for the fact you ran into me and now I never can please give me a million billion dollars for my pain awooo
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2012 08:24
|
|
|
Yeah they're probably going to hang you. Sorry you had to find out like this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
QuiteMad posted:So, I'm a moron who didn't know anything about car insurance, and only had 5k worth of property damage insurance. I was driving in CA and was determined to be at fault for an accident (rear-ended a guy, who scratched a girl in front of him. My airbags deployed but nobody was hurt. My car was totaled (just fixed it, out of pocket). The car I hit has suddenly been totaled by their insurance (they apparently found frame damage) and that's 10k over my limit. I am in school and only have some savings. The insurance companies are haggling. How and when do they do asset discovery? What even counts as an asset (my newly fixed car?) Do I get in trouble for trying to pay my debts with my savings? I have not been sued yet, but I don't want to end up owing money I'll never have. You could be really hosed. I would talk to a lawyer.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:You could be really hosed. I would talk to a lawyer. Just to expand on this -- being uninsured or underinsured while driving, ever, is really stupid. I understand some places only do a really nominal amount of coverage, and that sucks because you live in a shithole, but the potential liability you incur while you're driving is really unbelievable. If you nudged a guy riding his bike next to you and made him fall and break his arm, you could be liable for lost wages and some pain and suffering; probably covered by your 5,000$ or 25,000$ or whatever dipshit insurance you got just to be legal while you're driving. But if it turns out the guy you nudged was a surgeon, and now he can't operate any more because you broke his arm and it won't heal right, you could be liable for ending the career of a promising surgeon, and be responsible for paying the difference between his salary as a GP and his salary as a practicing neurosurgeon from now until the time he retires -- probably millions of dollars. Unless you sprang for the extra coverage, bend over and lube up, because you're owned. It's like winning the lottery, except in reverse -- an improbable, sometimes exceedingly so, chance event sends you into absolute irrecoverable financial ruin. Never drive uninsured or underinsured if you can help it at all
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
That's probably as winnable as an impaired case gets, your friend is still garbage for driving drunk, and you're garbage for defending her poo poo tell her to shut up and pay up for a lawyer she'll probably be fine
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:I'd love to hear about how you have never talked on your stupid loving cell phone while driving you piece of garbage. I haven't, driving while impaired or distracted is loving stupid and negligent as hell and if you do it I hope when you die you don't take anyone with you porkfriedrice posted:I can't ask a legal question in the legal question thread without having to be poo poo on about drunk driving? Apparently not You got the answer you needed, why are you still crying about it
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:Who's crying here? I was only responding to you whining about all the bad people in the world. If you aren't offering legal advice, why post? No one in this thread is offering legal advice. You real dumb, chump
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
I'd try to get someone to check or monitor your mail at least occasionally. If you're tough to get ahold of, it's entirely possible you could get served by sub service via regular mail or something silly and end up getting sued and losing your case because you were out of the country and didn't even know about it. That's an extreme (and unlikely) example, but basically your interests could be prejudiced by not checking your mail at all for months on end. Get it forwarded to your mom or something while you're out of the country
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:Why is that, just wondering. I set a trial date the other day for August 2013. When you're setting down dates a year in advance, who cares about adjourning for a week or two here or there
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
I thought spoondick's first post looked a little pro se-crazyish, but let it go, and look how fast he unspooled
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:If a RO was filed by a layperson on behalf of a corporation, that's unlawful practice of law, right? Would that be grounds for dismissal? Also contempt, I would assume. Quit while you're ahead son drat
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 09:32
|
|
|
You clearly have the means to at least consult with a lawyer, and understand that it would probably be a benefit to you to do so. Not sure what other answer you're looking for
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
Wroughtirony posted:Okay, here's an easier question, since nobody was able to weigh in on New Jersey car insurance laws. Conflict of laws is an annoying area of law, the questions you're asking don't lend themselves to being answered on an internet message board
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Talk about an example of how not to draft
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 17:37
|
|