Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›2 »

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Perhaps the better question is why you were doing work for an 88% discount. Seems kind of silly to me.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2010 22:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:37

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

SWATJester posted:

Were you damaged by those words? In some definable way, not just "they hurt my feelings", i.e. you got fired or something.

In some jurisdictions damages are presumed.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2010 21:06

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

IceWolfe24 posted:

...I was told by the mortgage company that there would be no residual debt from it, as they would be able to sell the house for what we owed. ...they sold the house at a $85,000 Loss.

I don't have any advice to offer, but wow, my condolences. That is a really lovely outcome after they got your hopes up.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2010 03:10

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

kalonji posted:

Are you a lawyer? or even well versed in the laws of Canada?

As far as I know directors of the board aren't required to do any work beyond show up at board meetings and monitor company. So I fail to see how I could be sued by anyone other then unpaid employees or the Government of Canada for unpaid taxes.

Its not like I was an employee of the company. The running of the company fell to the majority owner who was President of the board and CEO. I was simply on the board of directors in an advisory capacity.

There is no detail beyond what was given, none that I know of currently anyways.

As a director of the company, you owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation. That comes from s. 134 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, if you're wondering. If you've breached this fiduciary duty, which is what is alleged, you can be sued by the corporation.

Which is another way of saying Talk. To. A. Lawyer.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2010 19:41

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

kalonji posted:

E: To clarify i'm asking for detail on my exposure in this case, clearly explained with a reference to an actual law in my area. Not YOUR GONNA GET SUED, that doesn't help me.

If you want a primer on the consequences of being a director, I would start here:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cilp-pdci.nsf/eng/cl00692.html

The Business Corporations Acts are pretty much the same throughout Canada when it comes to duties of directors, so that information should be relevant.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2010 19:55

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

kalonji posted:

A lot of goons really aren't reading, she is threatening to dissolve the company, making it impossible for the company to sue me for anything, only the creditors can ( and I didn't guarantee any loans) or even sign off on them as a director.

I will go see a lawyer, but only if and when i'm sued.

Section 134(1)(b) also imposes a duty of care between directors and creditors. So in theory, yes, a creditor could sue the directors. Or, she's going to go talk to a lawyer about dissolving the company and the lawyer is going to point out that the corporation can sue you directly.

But hey, you have a degree from a recognized University, just stick your head in the sand a little further and maybe this will all go away.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2010 21:05

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Incredulous Red posted:

You should go see a lawyer to try heading off being sued. Being sued or dealing with creditors is far too costly and time consuming to deal with if you don't have to.

This. For all you know, the lawyer is going to tell you to just give her the shares and walk away.

I'm not entirely sure of why you're so attached to shares in a company with negative value anyways, but hey.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2010 21:17

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Goon Account posted:

So here's the plan: lawyer up (over $1800?!? what do I do about this?), file in Alberta small claims, go to court, win, he pays all my legal fees (assuming I can collect). Right? What's the process look like? Anything interesting anyone can tell me?

I'm in B.C., not Alberta, where should I contact a lawyer? I assume in Alberta is the best bet?

I'm not your lawyer and this is legal information, not legal advice.

Your biggest problem is that you don't have a contract for an $1800 loan, you own a bunch of shares. There's ways to exercise shareholder remedies in the Alberta Business Corporations Act, however they are only available in Queen's Bench. Do you have copies of the articles of the corporation or any share certificates?

Edit: Wait, did you say the contract of purchase itself provides for dividends and redemption on demand?

Schitzo fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jul 21, 2010

# ¿ Jul 21, 2010 04:23

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Goon Account posted:

Yes. The contract for purchase of the shares includes both dividends and redemption clauses.

I do not have articles of incorporation nor any share certificates. The corporation is a valid, registered-in-the-province-of-Alberta corporation.

As for it making financial sense, if it was pretty much guaranteed that I'll win, I'd do it even if I don't come out ahead at all, cause I'm angry and it feels like justice.

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around a way that that arrangement could actually be valid under corporate law principles - the articles of incorporation are what would set out dividend and redemption rights. I feel like I know the answer already, which is that it's a mess of bullshit.

Do you mind PMing me the contents of the contract?

# ¿ Jul 24, 2010 04:33

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Goon Account posted:

Where do I file? F'reals, maybe its a silly question.

To enforce a contract signed by a British Columbian (me - interior) and an Albertan (near Edmonton) in small claims/Civil, does it matter what court I file in? I think I want to file in Alberta, but can I file in... say... Hinton, or does it have to be near Edmonton?

If you file in B.C., you still have to serve the person you're suing. Generally speaking, small claims will permit you to do that by registered mail. What will likely happen in that case is the person in Alberta will ignore it, you'll get default judgment in B.C., and then you'll have to register the judgment in Alberta.

That's a huge pain in the rear end.

If you're convenient to an Alberta court, suing in Alberta would cut out a lot of the above steps. Pick the court of your choosing.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2010 04:45

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

FreshShoez posted:

But if, let's say, he were to claim that his business DEPENDED on these sticks of memory and somehow he lost millions of dollars from a client because they didn't get there like he was planning... would he be able to sue me for any percentage of the losses due to my negligence?

Edit: Also, eBay doesn't allow us to leave bad feedback for buyers any more. The best I would have been able to do is give him positive feedback with a negative message... which would largely go unnoticed.

He'd have a duty to mitigate his losses, meaning that he should get off his rear end down to the nearest Best Buy and purchase a stick of ram. The most he could claim in damages would be the difference between the eBay price and the retail price.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2011 04:54

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

FreshShoez posted:

Would sending him a link to the Microcenter website (there's a MicroCenter 7 miles from his house) with the exact product he ordered, only for $30 more, be a wise or unwise move? Maybe something to the effect of "To help mitigate the losses you've incurred, I've located the product you need ... etc etc"? Should I just forget about it all together? I think I should. This guy has me way too worked up.

If it'll help you sleep at night, go nuts, but it's not necessary to email him. I am not your lawyer, of course, and nothing here was advice.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2011 05:22

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

oh snap posted:

One more question about my divorce case. The lawyer my wife is using is her uncle who represented us by doing the closing for the first home we purchased. I'm saying he has a conflict of interest because I opened all of my finances to him in confidence while he was acting as my attorney. He is claiming he doesn't have a conflict because any of the information he may have learned while representing me could have also come from my wife.

It's not really a helpful question, but your jurisdiction doesn't already have some sort of disclosure requirement in place? I'm not sure how you were planning on keeping this information secret anyways.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2011 04:53

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

LLJKSiLk posted:

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_%28BDSM%29

STATE: AL

I am currently dating someone who is into bondage/sadomasochism and has requested that I incorporate certain things, i.e. slapping, spanking, restraints, etc. into our time together.

I mentioned some sort of consent form being signed/put into place so that there is not some sort of fallout in terms of being termed as abuse/assault/whatever.

Is consent a valid defense provided that it is informed consent and signed by both parties?

Not looking to inflict any actual bodily harm or anything, but she expressed an interest in being "used."

Any advice on how to handle?

A little late, but hey:

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/887272--can-an-unconscious-person-consent-to-sex

# ¿ Mar 15, 2011 05:21

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

cassis posted:

Jurisdiction: Alberta, Canada

I�ve called the county property tax department; the account is still in old owners� name. Land Titles Registry tells me that the old owner is still the legal registered owner of our property.

Is there any recourse I can take against the lawyer�s estate to recoup the costs I�m going to have to get the property into my name, and how the hell do I get the rest of the sales proceeds if the trust account is empty?

Short answer, probably. ALIA is the insurer for lawyers in Alberta. Call the number on this page and explain your situation:

http://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/lawyer_regulation/financial_claim.aspx

# ¿ Mar 15, 2011 05:24

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

hypocrite lecteur posted:

I can't remember poo poo about property law and don't want to research this for myself. Someone entered a caveat on title on a piece of property that there should be no burning on the property. Like, no fires, no burning brush or trash, whatever. Owner then sells it off, continues to own an adjacent piece of land.

Is the buyer of the land bound by the caveat? What's involved in having it removed?

This is in glorious Canuckistan, the land god gave to snow

Off the top of my head, developer-imposed restrictive covenants run with the land. This might or might not be the case for one between private individuals. Options for removal will vary depending on the land titles legislation. Which province?

Schitzo fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Apr 23, 2011

# ¿ Apr 23, 2011 17:00

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

hypocrite lecteur posted:

AB

Take a look at sections 137 to 139 of the Land Titles Act. You'll need to determine whether it's capable of running with the land. Grab a copy of Ziff and see if there's any case law on point.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2011 17:25

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

jerkstore77 posted:

Now, from my understanding (from googling extensively), wills between a husband and wife become void upon divorce, right?

As already pointed out, that's not universally true. In Alberta, for example, divorce doesn't change a will. Remarriage will void an existing will, however.

Our law is actually being reformed on these points in the near future, but it's an example of how you can be surprised sometimes.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2011 00:09

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

amishsexpot posted:

Haha what?? God no. The suit is against the manufacturer.

I asked a friend's dad - a personal injury lawyer with 40 years of experience (but who does work for the Defendant's side) - for a referral for a consultant, but he told me it's generally really "bad form" to hire lawyers as consultants. He's also the guy who said there would likely be a conflict.

I think I'm just going to find new counsel to take over my case on a contingency basis.

If I acted for the table manufaturer, I'd third party your employer arguing improper installation / bad maintenance / whatever. Then it really gets messy.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2011 05:39

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

visuvius posted:

I was married to a crazy bitch in an arranged marriage for under 5 years where she contributed literally nothing to the marriage financially. Its insane to me that the court would assign her half of all my assets simply because, well, thems the rules.

That's the whole point though - the decision for one person to be the breadwinner and the other to play the role of stay-at-home mom (or dad) is made jointly. Presumably she contributed to the marriage in other ways.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2011 01:14

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

gvibes posted:

In the civil context, it is referred to as spoliation, and yeah, it would probably apply in this case. Courts don't need to be involved, there just needs to be some sort of likelihood of litigation or something like that (not sure of the exact standard). Once there is that likelihood of litigation, you have to preserve relevant poo poo.

To add to this, the outcome of spoilation depends on the jurisdiction. Where I am, the result is that an adverse inference is made by the court (e.g., the court assumes that the evidence was negative to your case).

I think in some jurisdictions there are actually penalties involved, but that's outside anything I've dealt with.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2011 01:22

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Public service announcement for any Alberta goons - our Wills legislation was changed Feb 1, 2012 and applies to both new wills and wills executed under the old legislation.

Take five minutes to talk to your lawyer if you have anything more complicated than an "all to wife, or if she's dead all to my kids" type of will.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2012 09:08

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

LOLBBQ posted:

I have 30 days to plead not guilty and request a trial. Should I start calling lawyers tomorrow?

My observation, that is in no way legal advice, would be that this type of situation has three actions:

1) Weigh the $310 + insurance costs against the value of your time, decide that fighting the ticket isn't worth the effort.

2) Plead not guilty with the intention of showing up in court looking respectful, politely approaching the prosecutor, and suggesting that you would plead down if demerits could be avoided. They don't need the hassle of actually fighting it, and usually will be happy to just resolve the thing.

3) Decide you want to fight the thing on principle, plead not guilty and actually take the stand. Testify exactly what you told us (his headlights off, you must have had lights on or you would have died on the back road). Call the cop, ask him whether he had any way to confirm who had headlights on besides his word against yours. Hope you come off as credible. Not just a little more credible, but a large enough difference that the judge takes your word at face value.

None of those require a lawyer. Just keep telling yourself that the stakes are really pretty low, and you can do this without becoming a stuttering mess.

That's my observation of traffic tickets in general that is not specific to your situation whatsoever.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2012 07:21

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

CaptainScraps posted:

She'd need to sign a disclaimer and it would fall into the residuary and be distributed like she didn't exist. So between you and your step-mother.

Also, for everyone's sake, she should have her own lawyer and independant legal advice. You don't need her coming back later saying she didn't understand what she was signing.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2012 10:16

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Leopold N. Loeb posted:

Given that the property and home I mentioned were already listed by a realtor for sale(my lawyer put the kibosh on the deal), is it possible that there was some fraud? Or would the realty company not yet have reached the point at which they needed to determine ownership of the home and property? It seems like they would have to know who really owned the property before listing it for sale? I mean, they must have known that my father died, because he obviously didn't sign any paperwork? I am not a realtor, obviously, and am very confused by this.

Depends on what the Will actually said. It's possible that it left instructions to sell all the assets and split the cash. The executor would be within his/her authority to carry that out.

With that said, however (and I can't speak to your state), in this jurisdiction the title to land cannot be transferred without a grant of probate confirming the executor's authority to act. I would think about popping by the courthouse and searching to see if the new wife had applied for a grant. If so, the Will was likely attached and is now public record.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2012 10:20

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

baquerd posted:

Does an entity need to be a lawyer to represent a person (and would civil vs. criminal matter)? A person can go pro se and represent themselves without legal experience, but could another person without credentials represent them?

Now putting that aside, suppose an expert system (a computer) able to interact with the court in every way required of a lawyer existed. Could it represent someone? Could a person going pro se use such a system as an adviser?

The base question here is assuming such a system existed, what would need to happen for it to act as a legal adviser (officially or otherwise) during either a criminal or civil trial?

Generally speaking, some lower level courts (i.e. small claims court, criminal docket court) may permit an agent to act. The agent can be any individual, no law degree required. Higher levels of court generally require a lawyer, although (at least in this jurisdiction) the court has the discretion to permit an agent to act.

This actually comes up a lot when a small business gets sued - the sole shareholder of the corporation shows up to state his side of things and doesn't realize that the corporation is its own entity and requires counsel to act on its behalf.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2012 10:23

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

TacoHavoc posted:

Can someone give me a rundown of how the probate process works? I'm in Maine if it matters. An older man passed away and has one surviving daughter, who is named the beneficiary of all his assets in his will. The estate is small, no property and under 50k in other assets. The way I understand it:

1) She goes to probate court and files some forms + will.
2) A hearing is scheduled
3) The hearing produces some sort of legal document giving her possession of his assets
4) End of story?

Is that all there is to it, or am I missing something?

To completely generalize and without doing any research about Maine whatsoever, I'd be surprised if probate required a hearing. You submit your application and give notice of your application to any beneficiaries or other interested parties (minor children, spouses, etc). Usually the application is fired upstairs for a judge to review at his/her leisure, no personal appearance necessary.

The exception would be if the will is disputed - for example, if a disinherited child claims that the deceased was incapacitated and coerced into signing a new will. Maine may also have legislation that permits the court to make provisions for dependants who were not properly considered in the will - i.e. if you don't leave a penny to your badly disabled child, you're not only an rear end in a top hat, but the will can be reviewed.

That said, the process is a pain in the rear end - it's a good day if my application is accepted on the first try, as the clerks are very fussy. Your milage will vary, but if she can find a lawyer who will do it for cheap, she may want to think about it. The actual work will all be done by a paralegal, so costs could be reasonably low (especially considering the state of the legal market right now).

Finally, and this is not advice in any way, it's important for the executor of the estate to clearly seperate the estate assets from his or her own. If a new beneficiary somehow comes out of the woodwork, the executor can be personally liable for estate assets that have been taken before the probate process is complete. Also, taking estate assets can make the executor liable for estate debts, including income taxes owing. Don't mess with that.

Schitzo fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Feb 20, 2012

# ¿ Feb 20, 2012 11:52

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Grayly Squirrel posted:

No one actively enforces the prohibition. It is the type of thing that only becomes an issue if you gently caress up. If you are not a licensed attorney but give legal advice anyway, one of two things can happen:

(1) The person takes your unauthorized legal advice, and acts in reliance on it. You were right, everything works out great, and nobody is the wiser.

(2) The person takes your unauthorized legal advice, and acts in reliance on it. You were wrong, and poo poo goes south. You now get sued for loving everything up. If you are in law school, you might as well drop out, because you will never be admitted to the bar.

Since (2) is a pretty dire option, it is best to play it safe.

To add to all of the above, there's always the risk that the person seeking advice gets it in their head that you actually are their lawyer. Fast forward a few months and you get sued when they blow a limitation period because they expected you to take care of it.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2012 09:51

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

BirdOfPlay posted:

.

The question(s): Is Paul the de facto executor or would someone else have that responsibility?

And, if so, could he make that deal, liquidating the Amazon shares, which I bequeathed to Mark, to protect his own inheritance? Asking cause this sounds a touch underhanded (so the gut says "it's illegal").

The executor can be appointed in your Will, otherwise someone can apply to court. If two or more people apply, priority is generally given in the order that you'd expect (spouse, kids, parents, etc.).

The executor has a fiduciary obligation to the beneficiaries and cannot put his own interests first. In my jurisdiction debts are paid out of the residue of the estate first before specific gifts are touched (unless the Will says otherwise).

The executor does have the power to settle claims - but he'd have to use assets out of the residue.

End result, Mark could bring an action against Paul.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2012 09:59

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Lief posted:

I recently won an internet contest that the creator of the contest made money off of but now the contest creator refuses to pay me the prize for no reason other than he doesn't want to. I have his name, address, screenshots of the contest rules and offer and my submission etc. I sent him a kindly worded email but I don't know if it will be sufficient. What legal recourse do I have? I would chalk it up to life but he owes me hundreds of dollars and I'm willing to sue over it.

Any chance you're in the same state as him?

# ¿ Feb 27, 2012 08:04

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Lief posted:

No; he's in Kansas. Is there a discernible difference?

How these actions often play out is you file a small claims action, jump through the hoops to make sure he's properly served, he ignores it, you get default judgment, and then realize it's a pain in the rear end to enforce a judgment in another state.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2012 08:15

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

BigAlienHoopajoo posted:

Quick question - my roommate hosts a weekly radio show for a local radio station where she's allowed to play basically whatever music she wants. She's now looking to start her own website where she can host the clips from her show, but isn't sure about the legal ramifications of re-broadcasting the music portions and I was wondering if someone could clue me in. She's also wondering what would be required if she wanted to start doing her own podcast separate from the radio station and play music there too. A guy who works at the station mentioned something to her about a "blanket residual," but my googling hasn't turned up anything useful about that. We're in California, not sure how much of a difference that makes.

Re: hosting the clips - I'd be a little surprised if the station's agreement with ASCAP (or whoever) permits rebroadcast of the music by a third party. Maybe there's an exception for promotional use, which that might be.

The station should have someone (maybe a lawyer, maybe not) who deals with licensing. She should have a sit-down with that person.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2012 06:42

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Kalman posted:

ASCAP actually doesn't deal with digital rights. It's SoundExchange for digital public performance (streaming/webcasting) and the rightsholder directly for digital download (podcasts/downloads), plus Harry Fox for the composition reproduction rights for download situations. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide would be worth taking a look at to get an idea of exactly what she would need to do - it won't be simple to do it legally.

Because this is California, there's also the potential issue of rights of publicity for recordings of a voice - I think California retains those in the person, but who knows if there's some weird contract clause that means the station has ROP to her voice in connection with the shows she does.

Thanks for the reply - I'm in Canada, so I was winging it from a 10-second google. OP, listen to this guy.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2012 07:54

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

NancyPants posted:

How's that work if you refuse a breathalyzer and demand a blood test? You're arrested, car impounded, etc? Are they even allowed to e: refuse to conduct a blood test?

For a Canadian perspective, the officer must first have probable cause to believe that you have consumed alcohol. Most common PC? "Have you been drinking tonight son?" "Well, only one beer sir". Bam, breathalized. STFU next time.

You then must blow into the handheld unit. Refusing will result in a criminal charge for refusing to blow, which is pretty much an open and shut conviction. However, the handheld units are not considered reliable enough to be used in court, so if you blow over 0.08 they're going to take you to the police station.

You will get your phone call. Use it. Ask your lawyer to read you the criminal code, page by page, including annotation, and pray you have an efficient liver. If the cops force you off the phone you have a potential charter breach. Make it clear that you weren't finished consulting with counsel. Eventually you'll need to blow into the real machine. Pray.

The new twist in Alberta is that if you blow 0.05 or greater on a handheld device you can be charged on the spot under provincial legislation, rather than federally, and hit with a license suspension, fine, and impoundment. But wait, Schitzo, didn't you just say the handheld units are too unreliable to use in court? Yup, but that's not going to stop the province.

I personally have no experience, but rumour is that if you blow a 0.09 or 0.10, the cops will just hit you with the provincial charge rather than drag you to the station and hope you don't sober up in the interim. So pro: no record. Con: no car for a while.
Penguins, can you confirm that?

# ¿ Mar 11, 2012 10:22

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

bleepstreet posted:

Small Claims Court Question - Vancouver, Canada

My strata insurance paid for damages and repairs to the walls but the new flooring and baseboards are coming out of my pocket.
...

Should I try and contact the company and see if they are willing to pay me out for the losses before I take them to court?

How much evidence do I need to have before I go to court?

Couple of thoughts. First, not sure just what the strata insurance covers. Do you have a second policy for things like contents or accidents?

Contacting the company can't hurt, but the whole reason you put property in a holding company is so that you can walk away from it if you end up with liabilities greater than the value of the property. Depending on how much damage was done, and how many people are suing, you may be trying to get blood from a stone.

Re: evidence, you need to show three things. That they caused the fire, that it was negligent, and that it caused you damage. Not sure that there's any rule in BC that would make the owner liable for an act of god type scenario (like the oven catches fire randomly one day through no fault of the user).

I'd chat with other neighbors and see if anyone else has looked into this already, it may save you some trouble.

Schitzo fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Mar 19, 2012

# ¿ Mar 19, 2012 04:49

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Lord Gaga posted:

I am located in Orange County, FL

Question:Can I take them to small claims court in my state over this or do I have to do it in Texas, the place I mailed the thing to? Can both my mom and I be named on the same suit?

Story:
My mom and I both purchased a product from KitchenAid and mailed two rebate forms with required proof in on time via certified mail. It has been months and they have said they're not giving us the rebates and they have no record of it. The combined value is about $120.

There's a whole body of law relating to when a court has jurisdiction to hear a matter. Practically speaking, however, even if Florida is the wrong state it will cost them more to apply to dismiss than to just pay you. That cuts both ways though if the small claims court has any sort of filing fee.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2012 02:07

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

I would expect the company to offer to settle for the value of the rebate, sans filing fees or any other costs. Unless our plaintiff is prepared to see this through, it will pretty much end up a wash.

Alternate, comedy answer: file in the superior court in your jurisdiction. Small claims will generally allow agents, meaning you don't need to be barred in Florida. Real court means their in-house counsel can't appear unless they are admitted in Florida, and they need to hire local assistance.

Schitzo fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Mar 25, 2012

# ¿ Mar 25, 2012 09:27

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Lord Gaga posted:

I would too, the question is how to get them to do it without actually having to pay the filing fee? Just send them a certified letter saying next step is a suit, here is the evidence?
.

I don't see much harm in sending a demand letter. One other thing to look at is whether any sort of consumer protection law applies. In my jurisdiction, for example, certain "unfair practices" can result in an automatic fine.

Alternately, blow up their twitter account with your issue, if they have one. That tends to get some entry-level warm body to respond.

Schitzo fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Mar 26, 2012

# ¿ Mar 26, 2012 06:04

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Green Crayons posted:

BTW her attorney is her attorney and not your attorney, so if the lawyer starts asking if you'd be cool and wait or something, that attorney trying to get you to act in the client's best interest. You are not that client. That client is your wife.

I'm not saying be a dick or anything, but just be mindful of whose interest that attorney is looking out for.

This. I can see her point of view, as obviously a divorce would likely hurt her if she otherwise had a legit appeal, but you need to look out for yourself.

No idea how it works in your jurisdiction, but maybe an agreement that she'll sign the necessary paperwork if you agree not to file it until after her appeals are exhausted? Definitely not advice, talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2012 02:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:37

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

BirdOfPlay posted:

Alrighty thanks. I really didn't think/know about "practicing without a license." I'll be treading VERY carefully in how I act from here on out.

I'll get her to call up the Magistrate (or "Magisterial Judge") and see what's what. Also, it was from a court in Pennsylvania (probably a Mag. Court in Pittsburgh), not Virginia (her residence), if that matters.

The thing is this whole "summons" thing is confusing to me about it's seriousness. Checking over what two separate Mag Courts have sent me for traffic violations one calls itself a "Summons for a Summary Case Traffic" and the other is a "Notice of Trial Summary Case." Or these two intrinsically different things? Asking cause the one that called itself a summons, I remember the Deputy talking about how if I ignored the notice, the Magistrate would issue a bench warrant for my arrest. (Yeah probably some soft bravado/intimidation, but I don't hold it against him cause he told me EXACTLY what I needed to do to get the Magistrate to dismiss the citations.)

I don't want to diminish the importance of what Folly told you, but at least in my jurisdiction minor matters such as traffic court will allow agents to appear on someone's behalf. Call the clerks or pop down to the courthouse, and they'll definitely tell you what is and isn't allowed.

That said, even if agents are allowed, there are issues with the evidence you can give on your aunt's behalf (short explanation, it's not fair to the prosecutor if he thinks the story isn't true and has no way to directly examine your aunt about it). If you plan to do anything more involved than accepting a plea or asking for more time, your aunt reeally should be there.

Also, the clerks can likely clear up the Summons / Notice confusion for you. Clerks are amazing, just make sure you are polite and respectful. They deal with assholes and crazy people more than any person should have to.

Schitzo fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Apr 3, 2012

# ¿ Apr 3, 2012 05:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›2 »