vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The were earning interest, after all. This is probably true in most cases. Can the House be Foreclosed on? Yes. In our case, being 2008, we had a hard time selling the property. The asking price quickly went from $40k over what was owed, to $20k over, to $10k over, then to being equal to the mortgage value. Finally, I approached the bank about options. They suggested a ""Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure"" process. It was easier for us, and the bank had to pay less lawyers and such. Otherwise, a ""Deed in Lieu"" is effectively the same as a Foreclosure. At that point, we stopped making payments. Eventually, me and all my siblings (the ""heirs"") had to sign the proper paperwork giving the house over to the bank. In our case, the bank did not pursue us (or rather, the Estate) for the difference between final (auction) sale price and the mortgage balance (it was an FHA loan, so the US Government wound up picking up the difference). From what I understand, this could have happened, and we would have wound up with basically nothing out of the Estate. Can the Lender Force the Sale? I can't give a definite answer on this, but it probably depends. If you don't pay? Yes they sure can--it's usually part of the standard mortgage contract! I see 2 other options:"
Because you're not married, its a partnership agreement, and unless there's a written contract, either the two of you agree on how to handle the home, or it's off to court you go. If you were both supposed to pay for the home, and he failed to for a a while, that would put him in breach of contract which I would think gives you a good position in court. On the other hand, if you are at all concerned about your safety from this louse, remember, he knows exactly where the house is.
Previous to apply for a home loan, recognize the time of charges, punishment or fee charged by your lending company or bank for defaulting in monthly EMI. Know the dispensation accuse and in case a person decides to control their loan from current lender to a new lender, the present lender will charge consequence or fee for pre-closure of your loan.
If you tell the collector that the claim isn't valid, they're obliged to go back to the creditor to verify it. Sometimes that gets a real person, instead of their automatic billing system, to look at the claim, and if you're right, they'll drop it.
No.  This amount of money is not appropriate for friends to go in on. Although you could consider buying a house with a business partner, have the contracts drawn up, see an attorney, read up on the penalties if one of the partners doesn't hold up their end from the law's point of view. Also, since this is a business arrangement, write and sign all sorts of details regarding the penalties amongst the partners (not just the law) when one person doesn't hold up. It isn't that you don't have good intentions, or that you couldn't do it just fine if no problems ever happen.  The issue is that over the course of a mortgage, which is at least several years, something is very likely to come up.  If you and your friend aren't prepared to think about all those issues and how to handle them, you will lose a friend, probably a house and your good credit. I wouldn't go into business with my best friend because I want him to stay my best friend.
The safest way is to not sign contracts with terms that are onerous to you.
There can be mutually beneficial situations, but showing all of your cards is a great way for them to be used against you during negotations. &gt; It is a startup not big money, but us being in the USA as lawful citizens (me USA born, my wife naturalized Chinese ), we hold the risk here. Yeah, don't knowingly break the law. The risk is too high for you. &gt; I lived in China for ten years. Over there, the Chinese do, in almost all cases, all they can do to screw foreigners Red flag #5. Why do you want to be in business with a group you think will almost always exploit you? &gt; My wife thinks that because they are Chinese (the other party), I should be willing to accept this behavior. I totally disagree. Red flag #6. Don't use stereotypes to make judgment calls. &gt; My wife wants to have her own company very badly and she is very disappointed. Life is full of disappointment, and you can't wish for success. Well, you can, but you end up in situations like these. &gt; Do you agree when dealing with lying business “partners” if the offenses continue, even after a warning, that all bets should be off and one should change into “screw them” mode and claw back all possible money/power via all available legal resources? Say it with me. CONTRACTS! CONTRACTS! CONTRACTS! I'm not talking about a quick signature on a napkin. I'm talking about vetted and formalized. You have clear expectations. You have remediation. You have timeframes. If they don't deliver the promised expectation then you sue them. If you act on emotions then you are likely to do yourself more harm than good. If you don't think you can recover what you're due, you shouldn't be in business with a shady operator to begin with. &gt; Comments? Talk to a lawyer. You need to understand your risk and liability. If you're fine, stop investing money into this venture. You'll be taken for all you're worth.
If you knew the first thing about prisoners delimmas, you'd know that the cooperative outcome is so wildly disincentivized it never occurrs. In the case of the classic set up, any circumstance in which the prisoners stay silent results in jail time.  Prisoners delimmas are marked by the fact that the non-cooperative choice is the only choice you can make to avoid a negative consequence.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
"Shady isn't quite the right word.  They know that most of their customers are going to quit soon after they begin -- as in ""before the end of January"" -- so they lock you in while you're motivated.  And of course they're going to make it difficult for you to quit. No choice but to read their contract, understand it completely, follow their rules, and meet their deadlines.  There's lots of freedom for them and lots of restrictions for you.  It's like this if you're not the one writing up the contract.   However ... do you have a YMCA around?  Our YMCA has an initiation fee, but beyond that it's month to month.  Most flexible gym membership I've heard of.  If you lapse for too long they'll make you pay another initiation fee to rejoin, but there's no penalty for canceling.  Not all Y's are like that, but check around to see."
"Aside of ""don't lend money to friends"" a good idea is to have a written contract that states the sum, the due date, the interest (if any). Having the loan on paper makes it more real and harder to ""forget"". The third party is not necessary - anyone can have a bank loan for more than $10K by signing a contract with a bank without any third party."
Yep, this is a fact - and actually goes double for non-profits and the public sector. I'm significantly more shielded from this than if I was employed as a developer for a private entity.   I once worked for a startup where I had to sign a contract to not create a competing service within 2 years of leaving the company. I've been very careful to never put myself in that position again.
Don't do business with someone who is screwing you, and if you do business with someone who is screwing you, don't try to force someone else to come in and make them stop screwing you. Just don't do business with them.   It's super simple, but people will make a trillion excuses about it.
I've often encountered the practices you describe in the Netherlands too. This is how I deal with it. Avoid gyms with aggressive sales tactics My solution is to only sign up for a gym that does not seem to have one-on-one sales personnel and aggressive sales tactics, and even then to read the terms and conditions thoroughly. I prefer to pay them in monthly terms that I myself initiate, instead of allowing them to charge my account when they please. [1]  Avoid gyms that lack respect for their members Maybe you've struggled with the choice for a gym, because one of those 'evil' gyms is very close to home and has really excellent facilities. You may be tempted to ask for a one-off contract without the shady wording, but I advise against this.  Think about it this way: Even though regular T&C would not apply, the spirit with which they were drawn up lives on among gym personnel/management. They're simply not inclined to act in your best interest, so it's still possible to run into problems when ending your membership. In my opinion, it's better to completely avoid such places because they are not worthy of your trust. Of course this advice goes beyond gym memberships and is applicable to life in general. Hope this helps. [1] Credit Cards aren't very popular in the Netherlands, but we have a charging mechanism called 'automatic collection' which allows for arbitrary merchant-initiated charges.
&gt;observe their contractual obligations.    If not having to pay you is part of the deal, then it's not a good deal. Clearly companies have no reason to not just keep that money, and they keep it every chance they get. Why wouldn't they?
"For person A to be protected (meaning able to recover some or all of the money should the other party try to welsh on the deal), the two of them must have entered into a valid, binding contract where both parties acknowledge and agree to the debt and the terms. Such a contract is subject to the Statute of Frauds, a collection of laws governing contracts which is mostly borrowed from English common law. The basics are that in all cases, a ""contract"" is only formed when both parties agree, technically when one party accepts an offer made by the other party. Both the offer and acceptance must be made sincerely. For a contract, once entered, to be enforceable, proof of the contract's existence and terms must itself exist. Certain types of transactions (real estate, large amounts of money) require contracts to be in written form, and witnessed by a trusted third party (in most cases this party is required to be a notary public). And contracts must have a certain amount of quid-pro-quo; contracts that provide a unilateral benefit can be thrown out on a case-by-case basis. A contract that simply states that Person B owes Person A money, without stating what benefit Person A had provided Person B in return for the money (in this case A gives B the money to begin with), is unenforceable. The benefits must of course be legal on both sides; a contract to deliver 5 tons of cocaine will not be upheld by any court in any free country, and neither will any contract attempting to enforce hush money, kickbacks, bribery etc (though some toe the line; one could argue that a signing bonus is tantamount to bribery). In some cases even seemingly benign clauses, like ""escape clauses"" allowing one party a ""free out"", can make the contract unenforceable as they could be abused to the severe detriment of one party. There are also jurisdiction-specific rules, such as limits on ""finance charges"" for debts not owed to a ""bank"" (a bar, for instance, cannot charge 10% on an outstanding tab in the United States).
"Except the notion of a social contract is *always* used and intended to be used as a notion of agreement. And if it isn't based upon agreement then you have no basis under which to claim an obligation.  People don't owe anything to a collective that they do not wish to join, and the underlying problem is that there is no agreement. I'm not suggesting ""running a country"" at all. There need not be any such collective."
"Anybody who would put up their life savings and simply ""notice an odd clause"" and not have very large bells ringing with flashing signs saying ""NO!"" is not very financially savvy.  No wonder the banks considered her to be toxic."
The biggest reason that they are a bad idea is just because every credit application hurts your credit score, as does having too many cards. In addition, every new card is a greater risk of identity theft.
I'm arguing that proclaiming that everyone in a certain area is part of some collective agreement isn't the same as actually having a collective agreement. Therefore, no person has an obligation to pay for it if he/she does not want to be a part of it. And no, they don't have an obligation to take positive action to reject it.
You ask for the right to say ""no"" when the contract falls due, if the price you negotiate now is too high based on the spot price. The co-op now has a choice; for such a large shipment, if Coors decided to leave them holding the bag on the contract and instead bought it from them anyway on a depressed spot market, they could lose big if they were counting on getting the contract price and bought equipment or facilities on credit against it. To mitigate those losses, the co-op asks for an option price; basically, this is ""insurance"" on the contract, and the co-op will, in return for this fee (exactly how and when it's paid is also negotiable), agree to eat any future realized losses if Coors were to back out of the contract. Like any insurance premium, the option price is nominally based on an outwardly simple formula: the probability of Coors ""exercising"" their option, times the losses the co-op would incur if that happened. Long-term, if these two figures are accurate, the co-op will break even by offering this price and Coors either taking the contract or exercising the option. However, coming up with accurate predictions of these two figures, such that the co-op (or anyone offering such a position) would indeed break even at least, is the stuff that keeps actuaries in business (and awake at night)."
You should examine the letter more closely.  Most letters in this area are ones which inform you of a proposed settlement of a class action (not the initiation of a class action), and that you may be a member of the class.  A main point of such a letter is normally that if you take no action, you will be included in the settlement class.   Usually there are no major consequences to not opting out of the class other than you will lose the ability to get a lawyer and sue the defendants for the actions in question. To obtain benefits from the settlement, you will typically be required to submit documentation of the nature of your membership in the class.  This may be easy or hard.  The benefits are described in the materials, and could be substantial but usually are close to trivial, such as a coupon for $10 off when purchasing another product from the defendant.
"The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write ""pay to the order of "" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write ""FOR DEPOSIT ONLY"" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!"
If you can't muster up the fortitude to tell him you don't want this to be a partnership, you'll never succeed at having your own business.  Be firm but kind, and use it as a litmus test for how well you can make firm decisive action.
"This claims that ""once implemented, the liability will no longer fall on the consumer."" However, when this was introduced in the UK, a motivating factor for the banks was that liability was shifted away from them, and onto the consumer. Previously, if you had a forged signature, you were not liable. However, if somebody knew your PIN, the bank would say you have been negligent."
I was offered a student credit card and refused it. If I'd taken it and used it sparingly, paying off the balance on time in full every month, I'd have built up a better credit rating in the time period.
"The point of the enrollment penalty is basically the same as the ACA penalty.  Any sort of health insurance - or really, any insurance - is funded by creating a risk pool of high and low risk people and pricing it so that the overall payments cover the total risk.   That means, however, that on average the low risk people end up paying more than their share - more than it would have cost them, without the insurance, excepting any provider agreements to charge less (which is significant in the health insurance business).  (Of course some of them do end up using more than they pay - but not on average, assuming the risk was calculated accurately.) While there isn't really a completely low risk pool in Medicare, there is a significant difference in utilization (=cost) between younger (65-70) and older enrollees.  As such, for many health 65 year olds, it would be beneficial to not enroll in Medicare right away - delay a few years, if they're fully healthy, and wait until they are less healthy.  Since Medicare won't turn you away for pre-existing conditions, that's a risk some would take. In order to accommodate for that, Medicare effectively says, ""If you didn't help subsidize the costs of the high users when you were younger, you need to pay more to make up for that fact"" - hence the enrollment penalty.   The New York Times explains this in part in a 2006 article discussing Part D (which was new that year, and has a similar penalty): The purpose of the late enrollment penalty is to encourage people to   sign up as soon as possible, before they have significant drug costs."
Note that this kind of entry on your credit record may also affect your ability to get a job. Basically, you're going on record as not honoring your commitments... and unless you have a darned good reason for having gotten into that situation and being completely unable to get back out, it's going to reflect on your general trustworthiness.
&gt; you should never hire someone to work for you unless you would work for them  Sounds great in theory, but that one thing assumes a lot of organizational and cultural debt has already been overcome in your organization, which isn't always the case. Too often a less than ideal rewards system turns the success of peers into an economic or political threat, or even if such problems were solved, the culture that remains turns it into an ego-related threat.  Avoiding it almost requires you having to be in love with them, but even among spouses, it doesn't always work that way...
How is it more difficult? All you have to do if you are legit staying for at least 2 years is just get a cosigner. Also if they really did care, they would find all of us that did it, and collect the debt, and therefore it wouldn't be such a deterrence to give E2 guys visas. They would actually profit off it with the interests, lates fees, ect. They would WANT you to leave without paying. So if they dont care, whats the big deal?
"First off; I don't know of the nature of the interpersonal relationship between you and your roommate, and I don't really care, but I will say that your use of that term was a red flag to me, and it will be so to a bank; buying a home is a big deal that you normally do not undertake with just a ""friend"" or ""roommate"". ""Spouses"", ""business partners"", ""domestic partners"" etc are the types of people that go in together on a home purchase, not ""roommates"". Going ""halvsies"" on a house is not something that's easily contracted; you can't take out two primary mortgages for half the house's value each, because you can't split the house in half, so if one of you defaults that bank takes the house leaving both the other person and their bank in the lurch. Co-signing on one mortgage is possible but then you tie your credit histories together; if one of you can't make their half of the mortgage, both of you can be pursued for the full amount and both of you will see your credit tank. That's not as big a problem for two people joined in some other way (marriage/family ties) but for two ""friends"" there's just way too much risk involved. Second, I don't know what it's like in your market, but when I was buying my first house I learned very quickly that extended haggling is not really tolerated in the housing market. You're not bidding on some trade good the guy bought wholesale for fifty cents and is charging you $10 for; the seller MIGHT be breaking even on this thing. An offer that comes in low is more likely to be rejected outright as frivolous than to be countered. It's a fine line; if you offer a few hundred less than list the seller will think you're nitpicking and stay firm, while if you offer significantly less, the seller may be unable to accept that price because it means he no longer has the cash to close on his new home. REOs and bank-owned properties are often sold at a concrete asking price; the bank will not even respond to anything less, and usually will not even agree to eat closing costs.
I'm not pro-union not because of a conservative talking point, but because I think workers should have the choice as to whether they want to join or not.  Most unions are compulsory, not voluntary.  When I worked for Kroger as a summer job, I was forced to join the UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers).  A part of my meager hourly wage was required to be given to them, yet I did not want to be a member because I would never receive the benefits.  You had to be working for 6 months to be accepted into the union, yet you were forced to pay dues the first minute you began working.
"That sounds like a particularly egregious version of exclusivity. However, the way that you could handle that is to include a ""contingency"" in your purchase agreement stating that your offer is contingent upon the seller paying the brokerage fee. The argument against this, and something your broker might use to encourage you not to do so, is that it makes your offer less attractive to the buyer. If they have two offers in hand for the same price, one with contingencies and one without, they will likely take the no-contingency offer. In my area, right now, house offers are being made without very common contingencies like a financing contingency (meaning you can back out if you can't finance the property) or an inspection contingency. So, if your market is really competitive, this may not work. One last thought is that you could also use this to negotiate with your broker. Simply say you're only sign this expecting that any offer would have such a contingency. If it's untenable in your current market, it will likely cause your broker to move on. Either way, I'd say you should push back and potentially talk to some other brokers. A good broker is worth their weight in gold, and a bad one will cost you a boat load. And if you're in Seattle, I'll introduce you to literally the best one in the world. :-)"
"Actually, you started the crime before ""doing [the] mutually volunteer transactions"".  You started by violating the terms of the contract which are clearly stated on the coupon: 1 offer per household and no reproduction.  You used the same coupon over and over again.  That may not be a criminal offense, but the company could still find you liable for it.  It's what happens after you do the initial defrauding that'll get you in the biggest trouble."
"I don't think it is irrelevant.  If everyone is better off working together why not work together?    I mean, how can you expect to say something like ""sure, you'll be paying more for YOUR roads, but at least you won't be paying for other people's roads.""    If you can come up with even some rough estimates that show we'd be better off, but it sounds like you know we won't be better off, but want it anyway, just because you don't want other people to get a better deal than you.  I mean, that *really* doesn't sound like a better society than what we have now."