|
kimbo305 posted:Ripped from the headlines! Well, from reading the story, it looks like the stock lights violates statute in Maryland. If I were advising him, I'd probably suggest he start formally talking to Pontiac about getting reimbursed if that's what he wants, or suing them. In Maryland we have the tort of negligent misrepresentation, which is probably the closest thing that would apply here. Whether he would win or not is another story - Maryland is not really a plaintiff friendly state, and this is not really an easy tort to meet. -e- also might wanna change your lights or stop driving pontiacs so you don't get ticketed again.
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
King of the Cows posted:PG County and Baltimore City tend to be pretty friendly to plaintiffs. perhaps more so than the rest of the state, but on a whole the state is pretty pro-defendant.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Would it matter if he bought in or out of state? It's a variant of a standard negligence tort, basically that GM had a duty to the customer (either to sell him a car that was in compliance with state standards, or to warn him that the car did not meet state standards), and that their commercial misrepresentation breached that duty, causing damages. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Ah, the division that no longer exists of a company in chapter 11 protection? Does that change anything? I use the name generally. Pontiac, GM, whoever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:There's probably some kind of statutory implied warranty that goods will be fit for their intended purpose when sold in a consumer context Probably, but the recovery won't be as good.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
kph implies Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
Yes. Yes. Depends on the wording, but typically if he's already there, you don't go there and if you're already there, he can't come there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
I Am Not Clever posted:I need some advice. Several years ago, I (quite stupidly) attempted to shoplift a small item and was caught. It was charged not as a misdemeanor, but as an infraction, under California state penal code 490.1. I pled guilty and paid a small fine. Disclose it now. Then disclose it on the bar exam. The reason law schools ask, is because they have an obligation not to accept you if you cannot pass the character and fitness portion of the exam. So in essence, if they have a problem with it, good, they've just saved you 150,000 dollars. Also, don't go to law school. Seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
Perhaps you missed the part about don't go to law school.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 10:10
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I've looked in every once in a while, but it always felt like a bunch of Type A personalities hypothesizing about how they might as well kill themselves if they didn't make it into a T6/ T12/ T14 school. Even twenty years ago when I hypothetically might have cared about that, I didn't care about it. So, not only do I not/ did I not care, my experiences are too old to be useful to anyone, anyway. You're missing it. 3 years ago it was "Woes is me, now I don't have a BigLaw job". Now it's "I graduated from a T1, T14, whatever school, and I don't have ANY job and I can't even work for Geek Squad".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 06:51
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:Yeah cause working hard and smart and not being an idiot has everything to do with chance. I've seen the people who fail at being an attorney; you rarely ever get anything handed to you. You have to work for it. They don't understand that. And yet, you couldn't get in to an ABA accredited school. Yeah, that's the guy I want to be giving advice.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2010 03:22
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:Or I never applied for an ABA accredited school because none of them accept people who do not have Bachelor's degrees, and I didn't feel the need to spend a couple extra years studying something with minimal relevance to law to get a Bachelor's, just so I could go to law school? Hurf durf. How dare we expect our advocates and counselors to be at a minimum college educated, let alone to hold an accredited graduate degree in good standing with their own self-regulatory association? Nah gently caress all that, I don't want to do the extra work. GJ.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Javid posted:The following is me being curious: In areas that utilize the death penalty, how are laws regarding premeditated homicide altered to make it legal for the guy who pulls the switch or whatever? Or are they? If this isn't how it's done, how IS it done? a) No malice, so not murder. b) The state is privileged to commit the action as a public policy exception. c) The state action is explicitly authorized by statute.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:I wonder if you'd have a difficult time arguing consent when you're talking about minors. I doubt there is an agency relationship, and even so, there is no causation to sustain a negligence claim against him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
eviljelly posted:Depends how the facts shake out. As to what, agency, or causation? Agency: he's not acting within the course and scope of his employment, so no vicarious relationship. The church has not authorized any of his actions. He's not acting overtly as the agent of the church. He's essentially acting as a individual with licensee status on the property. I don't see the grounds for an agency relationship there. Causation: The cause in fact of the kids injuries is the other kid punching him. But for being punched, he would not have suffered the injuries. I'm not seeing how "but for OP's presence, the kid would not have been punched"; in fact, the facts establish that OP's presence STOPPED the fight. The simple argument is "They wanted to fight. Had they been in any other location, they still probably would have fought. The fact that they were on the church in front of the OP is completely irrelevant to the kid's injury". The argument for proximate cause is better, but not a slam dunk. Was it foreseeable that as a result of the OP's actions the kid would be punched in the face? Arguably not. TBH, I'm not even sure there was a duty or breach either, because OP had no duty to intervene/rescue and in fact did not intervene/rescue; and as long as he was not acting as an agent of the church, it's difficult to say that he acted unreasonably.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
eviljelly posted:If the facts shake out that the kids thought and say that they knew the guy was a church caretaker (or whatever he is) and that they thought that he was allowing them to fight there as a host, basically. You can extend that further by the kids testifying to the effect that the guy told them so. How would that be relevant to a negligence case? Permission to be on the land isn't a defense. And consent is only effective as between the two fighters in their battery case. The church cannot consent for two other people to hit each other.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 04:30
|
|
|
eviljelly posted:So let me get this straight. If the church organizes an activity for kids and someone gets hurt either because it was a dangerous activity or because the church allowed the activity to be conducted dangerously, you don't see that this could create a case against the church? I don't see that the church is organizing anything here. Remember, he came across these kids fighting. Also, the dangerousness of the activity is irrelevant, we're not holding anyone in strict liability here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:If he acts with apparent authority he can bind his employer, even if he does not have the authority in fact. I'm pretty sure that it would be very difficult to show that a reasonable person would believe that a church authorized a person to allow fight clubs on their property.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:I have a general question which should be applicable in most of the US. (I live in Illinois though) Here's how ineffective assistance of counsel works. You can literally sleep your way through direct AND cross examination of a witness, and that's not ineffective assistance of counsel.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
Service shouldn't be a problem if they're in jail on felony charges. An attachment on the car ought to be enough to to cover the $800. -e- Also I dont know how it works, but you might be able to garnish their prison wages?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Well, in who's opinion is the extent of the damage measured? For example, the owner might want to replace the whole thing and bring in an expensive contractor to rip it up completely, while the guy who ran into the fence might believe a repair job on the section hit is more than sufficient. The owner of the fence gets to decide what he wants to do with it. Replace it, repair it, etc. So, don't run into poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 08:06
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Do you actually have a jury in civil cases? This seems like something for small claims. Because the guy will probably sue you for conversion of chattels, for which the remedy is the full value of the product. Once again, the solution: don't hit other people's poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 08:38
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Doesn't conversion require voluntary action? Does an accident count? The volitional action is you driving the truck. You intentionally drove it. Your driving caused a conversion of defendant's property. It does not matter that you did not intend to convert the property; it only matters that you intended the act which causes the conversion. In that regard, it's akin to a strict liability standard. -e- And even if that jurisdiction tort law is not favorable to that action being for conversion, you're still liable for trespass. You're going to write a contract to release future liability for running over someone's fence? Or you've already ran it over? Leif. fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Aug 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 08:58
|
|
|
Non-lawyers should not be answering questions in this thread, though they do. I don't understand why you're making this into a big deal. You're going to pay them something for repairing the fence, right? The worst case scenario is that instead they sue, and you're out the FMV of the fence, plus possibly some incidentals. That's not the end of the world.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 09:06
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:When did you pass the bar again? Took it last month. Your point?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 19:19
|
|
|
OYEZ OYEZ OYEZ, COMES NOW [PLAINTIFF] HAVING BUSINESS BEFORE THIS, THE HONORABLE COURT OF SMALL CLAIMS, DULY SWEARETH AND AFFIRMETH IT TO BE TRUE THAT....
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2010 02:04
|
|
|
Defamation is so hard to establish anyway and so expensive you are probably better off letting it go.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
Only if he wants it admitted though. He might be trying to submit it to the prosecutor for leniency or some such, where it wouldn't be admitted as evidence but the effect would still be had.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
entris posted:If you post a single page / panel of your comic, I believe you have a copyright over that. Echoing this, and also that you have to balance copyright exclusivity versus the amount of reach you want to get. Basically, there will always be scraper sites that infringe your copyright and such, but you have to balance going after them with the amount of additional viewers that they'll get you. It's quite rare that someone would infringe on your copyright in a way that actually hurts you (they may copy your stuff but in such a way that it's entirely clear that you were in fact the author). So it's up to you to determine whether the copying in fact helps you. This is the argument behind the free culture movement, and as the local free culture guy here, I can tell you that I've gotten a LOT of mileage and a good amount of publicity from a few works that I've released under free licenses. Yes, I lose out on a bit of control, but I gain so much more by allowing my works to be widely shared and seen.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
Iowa is a one-party state anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
forgot my pants posted:I think by that you mean that only one party in a conversation needs to know that the conversation is being recorded. But keep in mind that she isn't a part of the conversation, because she's not present in any form. Am I understanding this correctly? By nature of remotely connecting, I'd argue that she is a party to that conversation. Basically there are two separate levels of eavesdropping occurring. One is the recording of the electronic communication between her remote computer and the work computer (OK because she is a party); the second is the recording of physical conversations made in the office by the recording device (in which her authority comes into question).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2010 08:33
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:e: Redacted. Basically they're both three words and differ by one: Mine has "Games" at the end, theirs has something else, and they're a game developer. I can't imagine they wouldn't be considered "confusing" if put against each other. PM me? I'm in that industry and might be able to sort it out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 00:40
|
|
|
Biskies posted:I started working at the DC office of an AmLaw 100 law firm in May of this year. I am a Legal Assistant for a partner attorney. Your answer can be found in this sentence.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
quote:The funny part is that I don't even think he realizes that he's inappropriate. He's a partner in an AmLaw 100 firm, of course he doesn't know it's inappropriate. That's what I was saying. Basically it comes down to two things. 1) they fire the partner (not gonna happen). 2) They fire you (or do nothing and you quit), you sue for wrongful termination, retaliation, HWE sexual harassment, whatever your jurisdiction has, and make a lot of money. -e- I'd start looking for a new job now. Just sayin.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
tishthedish posted:I'm emailing as opposed to calling because she's said things on the phone that she'll later deny she said. At first we were doing snail mail because I tried to email her and she said "our office does not allow communication through email". Oddly enough, after very slowly corresponding for a month, she was allowed to email! Imagine that. So send certified mail?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2010 20:03
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's libel. Unless he actually gets sacked (in which case he would sue for wrongful dismissal anyway) it just isn't going to be worth doing anything. Depends if Canada requires a showing of malice or not. I couldn't imagine the court finding malice in that her mistake was a reasonable one. If it had actually been YOU that sent out the emails, she would have been right in saying you were racist. Unless she willfully knew at the time that she sent out those emails that you didn't do it (which I'm not getting from your statement unless I'm screwing up the timeline) then she lacks the requisite malice for libel. Incidentally, I'd argue that it's not per-se either because it does not relate to your business or livelihood other than that was the location of the email sending -- all it says is "this guy is racist" not "this guy is racist and that makes him a bad worker" or something like that. Again, unless I'm reading something wrong. Leif. fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Aug 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2010 19:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I mean that even if he wins it's unlikely the damages would cover the cost of bringing the case. Unless it's a massive libel of someone with a high profile reputation or there's causal financial harm they never do. Well yeah, libel cases are almost never worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
mboger posted:At the risk of this derailing into a morality debate, for me it's more about the person invading my house than the "value" of any property they're taking. If someone violated my sense of security at home, I'd shoot to kill over a stolen ketchup packet and I'd sleep like a baby. No offense dude, but speaking as someone who has actually shot people (in the military) you wouldn't just "sleep like a baby" because you shot some retarded meth-head who broke in your house. Your post reads like you are basically the poster child for "people who should not have guns because they are not responsible gun-owners" and I would not be surprised if you are the kind of person who concealed-carries and intentionally places themselves in situations where they can brandish their weapon just to get a hardon. Just sayin.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 03:34
|
|
|
The entire point behind the Colorado code, like most other state self defence codes, IS threats to one life. A homeowner should, under this view, not be required to make a snap judgment, perhaps while just being woken up and under great stress, as to the intentions of a burglar. It generally carries a presumption with it that a crime committed in someone else's home is highly likely to be a violent one, and so the difference between an attacker intending to rough you up a bit, versus killing you, is not one that a homeowner ought to be forced to guess at. Especially when the consequences of guessing wrong are either committing a homicide or being victim of a homicide.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Actie posted:UPDATE: The scammer has initiated a PayPal transfer to me. It's for the amount that he owes me, and it's by eCheck. It says it won't clear until Friday. It's account dependant. I've had problems before where I couldn't make an instant payment over a certain amount and it made me do an eCheck instead.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 02:49
|
|