vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I have an example that may be interesting for your question. My grandfather had a tennis club around 35 years ago, and some other businesses. Some investments went bad and he was heading for bankruptcy due to the tennis club's expensive payments. So he asked to renegotiate a variable rate rather than a fixed rate, even though the interest rates were going up, not down. The idea was that if the current situation is going to bankrupt you, taking a chance might be better. As an analogy, if you can't swim and you'll drown in 6 feet of water, it doesn't matter that you're taking the risk to go deeper. You might have to take that chance to survive. He did keep the tennis club in the end but that's irrelevant here. For student loans, if I'm not mistaken, declaring bankruptcy doesn't free you of all their debt, so it may not be applicable.  And this situation is when renegotiating, not when negotiating the first time. because obviously if you're in trouble financially, taking a loan you know you can't repay is suicide.
"I usually say ""no thank you"", but if the salesperson gets pushy I say ""if I need insurance, I guess I won't buy the product because I only want to buy quality that will last a good long while"" I have never actually walked away from a purchase because I generally research these things ahead of time, but I think I mean it when I say it."
This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs. This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction. If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine. However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly. You can consider any of the following: Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure. If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement. Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement. The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response. And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier. You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision. You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry. If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal. They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that. Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is.
&gt; Every single tiny company that's trying to hire you as a young coder will dangle the possibility of a massive upside later on  And as a freelancer or employee, it's **your** responsibility to get that 'massive upside' in writing.  If you don't, you only have yourself to blame. Nobody is going to hold your hand for you.
The desire to be debt free is smart; but I think the purpose of a large group is motivation and peer pressure.  Getting out of debt faster isn't going to work mathmatically.  (I can't reason a scenario where the group's collective power doesn't favor one individual in the group over another.) All of the following conditions must be met: If any single thing fails, or if anybody changes their mind about how they feel about paying another person's debt, this plan will breakdown quickly and get very ugly.  Please notice most of those items are emotions, which cannot be planned nor controlled. Bottom line:  Don't do it.  The risks are too high compared to the average reward.  If your family could pull it off, a better plan would be to sell a reality show about the magical family who never fights and always puts the good of the others before themselves. Everybody do a debt snowball individually but have an email group, weekly group call, regular family meeting, group chat session or dinner event where you encourage each other, talk about the success, failures and openly discuss everybody's situation.  This is called a support group and they can be more effective than doing it on your own. Go around the table and  This will require humility, patience and grace from the participating family.  It will rely on similar peer pressure to succeed as a single group, without all of the very real pitfalls and very real consequences of a individual failing in a big group.
"I don't think that qualifies as a ""letter of intent"". It is more of an introduction.   A very expensive lawyer once told me ""What is the point of a letter of intent? To negotiate a deal? Why enter an agreement to try and enter into an agreement?"""
&gt;  i mean there is nothing wrong with being loyal with your company/firm  Yes there is.  Unless you are a partner or owner, they will never be loyal to you. Loyalty to an employer is a suckers game in this day &amp; age.
"I believe no-one who's in a legal line of business would tell you to default voluntarily on your obligations. Once you get an offer that's too good to be true, and for which you have to do something that is either illegal or very damaging to you - it is probably a scam. Also, if someone requires you to send any money without a prior written agreement - its probably a scam as well, especially in such a delicate matter as finances. Your friend now should also be worried about identity theft as he voluntary gave tons of personal information to these people. Bottom line - if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Your friend had all the warning signs other than a huge neon light saying ""Scam"" pointing at these people, and he still went through it. For real debt consolidation companies, research well: online reviews, BBB ratings and reviews, time in business, etc. If you can't find any - don't deal with them. Also, if you get promises for debtors to out of the blue give up on some of their money - its a sign of a scam. Why would debtors reduce the debt by 60%? He's paying, he can pay, he is not on the way to bankruptcy (or is he?)? Why did he do it to begin with?"
A service provider that prevents competition by making it illegal to compete. Every other insurance program allows you to opt out. And i wouldnt consider it protection when they stick there dick into everyone elses business. Every gang or mafia claims to protect those it shakes down.  Edit.. Just because you wear a brown shirt doesnt make you a righteous person.
Because it's a con. People give you money because you promise them more money, and then you walk away with their money. There are more steps but they don't matter.  You can probably ignore the MLM drone who doesn't realize he's a cover for abusing those hyped kids. These companies are minimally different from outright fraud. If a business repeatedly assurse you it's legal, that's a warning.   You can definitely ignore the edgelords whining about government.
If you don't mind, sign the form and move on.  If you would rather make a point, go to another lender.  You lender had certain boxes they have to check off as they go through the paperwork process:  the two things your lender cares about are those boxes and getting paid. Take your money elsewhere and they don't get paid.  But seriously, just sign the agreement.  Focus your intelligence and productivity on something more worthwhile than your pride.
"There are two different issues at play here, and they are completely separate from each other: A bank or cashier's check is ""safer"" than a regular personal or business check because it avoids problem #1. Problem #2 exists with all kinds of paper checks. I assume the reason the warnings are about cashier's check moreso than personal checks, is simply because people already know to wait for personal checks to clear before handing over merchandise to the buyer. People are less likely to do that when receiving cashier's checks, but perhaps they still should if there is any doubt about the validity of the check. One could argue that a cashier's check actually provides a false sense of security due to this (to the receiver). On the flip side, if you are the payer, then a cashier's check could be thought of as more secure than a personal check because you don't have to reveal your bank account information to a stranger."
"This article is written by an idiot!!  Risk ≠ failure, risk = possibility of failure  Reward (return) should be commensurate with risk and this is why long-shot propositions should be worthwhile. An example of this could be something like the following; an investment with a 95% chance of success should return about 5% on the investment (1 in 20 risk of loss, 1/20th return on investment for taking the risk) while a long-shot investment with a 5% chance of success should be paying a 2000% return (1 in 20 will succeed but they will pay 20 times the investment if they do).  An investment with a 0% chance of return (that you are suckered into due to ""opacity"") is not an investment, it is being robbed and it should be illegal. WTF is opacity? Lying?"
In my experience, you don't need to endorse a check with a signature to deposit it into your account.  You do if you are exchanging the check for cash.  Businesses usually have a stamp with their account number on them.  Once stamped, those checks are only able to be deposited into that account.  Individuals can do the same.   I have had issues depositing insurance and government checks in the past that had both my and my wife's name on them.  Both of us had to endorse the check to be able to deposit them.  I think this was some kind of fraud prevention scheme, so that later one of us couldn't claim they didn't know anything about the check.
This bit of marketing, like the zero-percent introductory rates some banks offer, is intended to make you more willing to carry a balance, and they're hoping you'll continue that bad habit after the rate goes back up. If you don't think you'll be tempted by the lower rate, yhere's no reason not to accept (unless there's something in the fine print that changes your agreement in other ways; read carefully). But as you say, there's no reason to accept ir either. I'd ignore it.
Well... this is a reason to change, right?   If you find subsidizing unethical business practices to be, well, unethical, and you don't want to support those things, then it makes sense to stop supporting it.   If you're completely apathetic, then not giving a shit makes sense.
If a separation agreement is already entered into, this will be family law legislation in Australia that any agreement made between two former partners must be partners are not coerced into entering unfair agreements and also to ensure one partner. For more details visit our site lawyerslegalformsanddocuments.com
&gt; by not trying to spend more than you have.  Or, someone poor was making a calculated risk. I'll pay these bills on day 1, then this bigger bill on day two and it will over draft by $15, but I will avoid a $50 late fee on my rent. The bank then slows the transactions and maximizes their profit by what would be considered unethical behavior. Most people have almost no savings, less than $1000 in the bank, and high debt.
This discussion over at Google Answers suggests that the only time it matters is if your signature is challenged -- that is, someone has reason to doubt it's you authorizing your signature.  (Assuming US here.) But if you wanted to get another debit card and sign it differently, and start signing things that way from then on, you might never get challenged about it.
&gt;I believe that decisions should not be based on ideology but on their merits and results  This is the exact opposite of your argument.  Good luck with your future endeavors. I hope it's never a law firm.
"The issues are larger than taxes.  If one of you receives the check, then breaks off 25% of it for themselves and sends three checks out to each of you that will be indicated on that person's taxes.  You three will then all recognize your portion of the income on your taxes and it's all settled.  It's no big deal, it's a bit rag-tag but it'll get the job done.  I've done little ad-hoc partnership work with people this way and it's not a problem. This is why you should really be more formal.  What if this entity contracting you guys sues you?  Who has the liability, if only one of you was paid?  What if the money is sent to one of you and that person dies before paying you?  What if you all get another client?  What if this contracting entity has another project?   The partnership needs to have the liability.  The partnership needs to receive the money.  The partnership needs to be named on whatever contract you all sign.  The partnership can be a straight partnership, or maybe the four of you take a 25% stake in an LLC or Inc arrangement.  Minimally, you should sit down with your partners so everyone knows everyone else's responsibilities, and you should write it all down.  It probably sounds like overkill, and I'm sure your partners are you buddies and ""we're tight and nothing bad could come between us.""  I've done some partnership work with more than one friend, we've always been fine.  Some ventures are successful, some aren't; I'm still very good friends with all of them.  Writing things down manages expectations and when money starts moving around, everyone is happier when everyone has a solid expectation of who gets what."
"The short answer to all of this is that it depends on the loan and on the collections agency. It's an ""interesting"" time to be a collections agency right now. On the one hand, people are defaulting on debts, and those creditors want to be paid and are beating down the agencies' doors. On the other hand, if you can't pay you can't pay, and the threat of collections action is not much of a motivation when you're already 90 days out, and so collections agencies are having to consult crystal balls and tea leaves to try to determine which debts they're likely to collect if they buy. Many collections agencies have begun subscribing to the ""you catch more flies with honey than vinegar"" philosophy; ""we know it may be very difficult for you right now, so we'll make you a deal to settle the debt for 80% of face value, and you'll never hear from us again"". Other agencies continue to live by the threat model; ""we're heartless and cruel and we don't care that it's tough; we own you and you will pay us everything we ask for or we will make your life hell every way we can"". There are advantages, and a certain synergy, to both approaches. You really do get more success by making a deal, so the agency that is willing to work with the debtor and offer them a good deal is going to be more likely to collect. However, that quickly becomes an incentive to not pay; ""Yeah, they sent me this outrageous bill for my sprained ankle, so I just ignored it and let 'em sweat, and ended up paying half what they billed me"". Sprinkle in just a few cases of ""Yeah, I couldn't pay my cell phone bill so I just let them cut it off, but the collections agency started calling and mailing me every day and I had to pay twice what I owed in the first place to make it stop"", which filters through the collective psyche of the masses, and all of a sudden if and when they do offer a deal on a debt you fell behind on, you jump on it. Now, to the question at the end of your post.
I don't see a way that this would make matters worse than just giving them the credit card info... Except that it would make abusing the card easier at some other site (or the bank) if they have a similar (unreasonably weak) security-by-photo test. Still, I'd strongly recommend you use a separate card for this so you can cancel it without disrupting your other credit card uses.  (Actually I'd strongly recommend not doing business with folks who have already demonstrated questionable ethics, but you seem to have made that decision.)
&gt; If the investor is a partner in the company then they're just as responsible for the debts of their business as any other partner.  Umm, one of the benefits of creating a corporation is to keep personal money separate from the business.  http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/corporation-basics-29867.html  There are exceptions to that of course.  &gt; The registered owners of the company can also be held liable for it's debts if it's a corporation.  This is false. Baring in mind that you can prove separation of assets and aren't doing anything illegal.  &gt; Or you can always just have them sign as guarantor for your back pay.  This is of course one of the exceptions.
Well, I think the first negotiation tip would be not to advertise that all  you do is million dollar contracts.  If everyone knows that's what you're going to settle on, nobody is going to be willing to offer any more than that.
&gt; I'm certain there is a very strong relationship between the amounts written on the checks and the worth of that product or service to the person with the pen.  Counterexample:   Let's say you are a professional horse gambler with winning strategy (let's say you can predict horses better than anyone!) playing against other players on the betting exchange. The person on the other end will always end up paying you and gets nothing.
"First, one would 'not' want to be the guarantor as it would likely appear as a debt on their credit. In some cases this can be good, but not always.  I'd suggest a homeowners meeting. A reverse auction where you say ""Would anyone like to get the condo fee waived for 12 months in return for guaranteeing the loan?"" If no hands go up, you have an issue. But if even one hand goes up, you have the guarantor. Then you ask if there are any objections. Anyone who objects is welcome to bid fewer, say 10 months. Ideally, you see a dozen hands go up, and you just count down until one one remains. When I lived in a condo the fee was $250. If I were one of the older residents who planned to stay, I'd do it for one or two month's fees."
That's sort of irrelevant. We're talking about merchant responsibilities, not their agreements with VISA/MC.  Different merchants handle this in different ways. Since I've seen successful businesses set an example by forcing their employees to verify signatures, there is no justification for other businesses half-assing it, which is exactly what they are doing.  &gt; It was never really intended to be used to authenticate the card  That is untrue. The whole point of signing your receipt when you purchase something via credit card is authentication. Should your purchase be charged back, the bank will ask to see the signature so they can look for evidence of fraud. Merchants are often required to turn in signed receipts to receive their money.
A friend recently bought an 800€ TV on 0% financing. Sounded like a sensible thing to do. Why pay 800 when you can pay 80pm for 10 months? It took 30mins to set up the 'loan'. She had to sign all kinds of documents, giving away much personal information (age, employment info, income, email address etc). She now has a financial relationship with an institution which has nothing to do with the item purchased. She is bombarded with all kinds of financial offerings. She regrets taking out the finance. She had the money. The hassle and the unwanted links to banks make the deal unattractive. Perhaps she should have tried to make a cash deal...
It's not that they don't want to pay it, it is that there is now an economic incentive to do it. People can no longer be turned down because of a preexisting condition.   That means that I should wait until I break my arm to sign up for insurance. Then once it's better I should cancel it again. That is simply what makes sense economically. Only people who are sick need insurance if sick people cannot be turned down
as someone who was an sap specialist for 2 years, i dont know why on earth you would want to spend your time on learning this software ad working with it. thats like the complete opposite direction to being successful at business
Yeah its just scary. I'm glad you said no. I'm not saying it couldn't work. But I legit don't know anyone who has done it and been successful. My mentor in the business quit a year or so after I did and he had been hitting it hard for 4-5 years. He made a little money off of it but nothing compared to what he was putting in. I can honestly say I learned some great things from the materials they promoted but I can't honestly give them credit for referring me to others work. They had their own books the founders had written which were good and all, but they mostly were a regurgitation of all the other successful leadership books they promoted. Good for you though. If you know anybody getting involved in this make sure you tell them to stay away. It's so scary how these companies are allowed to do business with the failure rate they have for people who sign up.
"I just edited an employment agreement last week that had a fairly standard noncompete for the industry (""You won't go to work for my clients"") , but the last sentence was ""You will not work as a contractor or consultant within 150 miles for 18 months.""  WTF. Granting the employer the benefit of the doubt, it was intended to mean ""for any of my clients"" but that's not what it said, and as written it basically meant if I leave this job I can't work for 18 months."
When they made a counter offer they essentially rejected your offer, and you are no obligation to accept theirs. Nor are you obligated to your original offer. That is the risk a person takes when they make a counter offer. Their agent/representative should have advised them of this risk.  Because time is of the essence in most of these transactions their delay with the extra round also made your original offer void. You were right to keep other properties in play.
Few people can afford to lose months or years of income, and sadly those most vulnerable to a scammer's siren song are often those who can least afford it. It doesn't sound like a situation where you'd have to devote your life to the cause of stopping it, but if I knew that dozens of people in my community stood to lose years of income, I'd want to make at least a small effort to stop them, rather than just keep my mouth shut. In doing this, you may lose your friendship. However, you stated that your goal is to resolve the situation in a way that is ""best with lowest loss of money for everybody"". If you really take this utilitarian view, it is likely that you may have to give up on the friendship to prevent other people from losing more money."
If you're selling a product of actual value, and willing to do the recruiting hustle then a Network Marketing Scheme might work out for you. If you can't make money just selling the product, or it's not a product you'd support I would stay far away. In the US, it is my understanding that MLM is legal if your earnings can surpass your sponsor's. Disclaimer: I did Quixtar (Amway online) in college. But I didn't succeed because I didn't nag all my family and friends to join nor hustle the products. I have met folks who have actually done well with it, and I think without really screwing anyone else over.
WTF - she worked as a Temp and still they were trying to stop her going anywhere else?  These agreements are very one sided and demonstrate disproportionate market power.  If someone is THAT valuable, they should be working harder to keep them and paying them properly, rather than forcing them to not work competitively.  And seriously, and I don't mean to demean the skills of your friend, but a Dental Hygienist? How much damage to a business can she do if she goes to work for another dentist?