Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Deduplicated

like 0

Can Indian Company file a Civil Suit against a Foreigner

A common foreign client is simultaneously in discussion with Company A and Company B in India. The so called client states that Company B product is a copy of Company A 's product during the demo session of Company A . The only loop the client had was that Company A employee who presented the demo of Company B 's product a week before. Actually the said employee had already quit from company A but the company A 's website had the photo & details of former employee who is now associated with Company B . The so called client takes demo with Company B and later finds ex employee's details in Company A 's website and told the company A that their employee had given demo of Company A 's product under the domain name of Company B . In this case, except the demo session the client didn't have access to live application of Company B but he is very much confident about his allegation. In this case, except the demo session the client didn't have access to live application of Company B 's product, the so called client didn't state its similar or identical but very confident that Company B 's product is the copy of Company A 's product. What action can Company B take against the foreign client if they're innocent.

Defamation is communication of a falsehood to a third-party damaging another's reputation. Company A and Company B know the truth and they're the only ones the statement appears to have been made to, so there is unlikely to be any defamation liability on the part of the client.

Is there any truth in that social security was based on models of either railroad worker or maritime insurance schemes?

A common law citizen trope which is no doubt in the final analysis completely bogus is that social security was modelled after mandated insurance for ships. David Siegel in another question suggested that it might have actually been insurance for railroad workers although I wonder if it wasn't more modelled from private pension schemes. Anyway is there any kernel of truth? I kind of suppose that their interest in the topic more derives from the fact that it represents something that the government takes out of your every paycheck which it is thus widely satisfying and appealing to have a conspiracy theory-like explanation of.

According to the Wikipedia article "History of Social Security in the United States" : In the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck down many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the Railroad Retirement Act. The Social Security Act's similarity with the Railroad Retirement Act caused Edwin Witte, the executive director of the President's Committee on Economic Security under Roosevelt ... to question whether or not the bill would pass The official page "Historical Background and Development of Social Security" gives a fairly long and detailed history of both remote and immediate predecessor programs and concepts, including ones from other countries than the US.

Difference between lotteries and events that involve randomness?

A common marketing strategy is a 'Free giveaway', where ' one lucky person will be selected from (some group) to receive a free (thing) '. I was read that such arrangements can be deemed illegal lotteries . Yet, contradictorily, I also see major websites doing this. For example on Twitch, when a subscription is 'gifted' to the community, a community member (a user who has ever, at no cost, watched or interacted with the streamer’s streams) is selected (somewhat randomly) to receive it. How does the law look differently upon a website that gives away something randomly as opposed to a software process (like Twitch's) that randomly selects someone to give a reward to? To me, (layperson) the two seem very similar, however, there must be some legal difference?

You are confusing a lottery with a sweepstakes The fundamental difference is that to enter a lottery you have to provide something of value (cash, a product purchase etc.) to receive a ticket. In a sweepstakes, tickets are free to anyone that asks in the right way. While both are games of chance, a sweepstakes is not gambling because the participants did not wager anything of value. If you read the terms and conditions of a sweepstakes very carefully, you will find there is a way of getting tickets without having to provide consideration. Getting them is often laborious and time consuming but so long as they exist, you have a sweepstake not a lottery.

Is it against the Computer Misuse Act to bypass a client-side paywall?

A common practice among news websites is to provide articles online, where an initial portion is freely viewable, and the remainder requires an active subscription. However, on numerous occasions, I have found that this is done through merely blurring or covering up the remaining text with client-side elements that can be disabled with simple 'inspect-element' tools provided by browsers. Is it violating the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to disable those elements and read the news article? A couple of points to emphasize: The article was already permissibly present on my machine. No data is being sent back; it's just a matter of how my computer interprets the data they gave me.

The relevant section (§1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 states (1) A person is guilty of an offence if— (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer, or to enable any such access to be secured; (b) the access he intends to secure, or to enable to be secured, is unauthorised; and (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case. When a content-provider puts content "out in the open" in the described fashion, e.g. with a visible snippet of text, they are implicitly authorizing people to access the content (notice that web pages do not have to overtly announce "You are authorized to read this notice"). One approach to narrowing the access so granted is via a log-in scheme which send a portion of text then a "teaser", plus code which (upon authentication) loads the full page. Circumventing that method of access is a violation of the act. Another method would be to include the entire content, by blurring, printing white on white, or some other form of display obfuscation, where display = scramble(plaintext). For example <!DOCTYPE html><html> <head><title>Title</title><style> #blur {font-size: 40px; color: transparent; text-shadow: 0 0 16px #000; } </style></head><body><div id="blur">Pay money to see this </div></body></html> When you enter your authorization code, the host computer performs a function (eliminates the scrambling in the code it sends to your computer, change 16 to 0). But you may be able to get the same result by inspecting the page source. The crucial wording of the act says "causes a computer to perform any function...", but the host computer is not performing any function at all at this point, indeed the host may have melted down. The owner of the client computer can authorize his own computer to perform functions on data legally received from a host (you can read a web page, you can zoom in and out, all being locally-executed functions). So it depends on the method of obfuscation used by the host. With that caveat, your analysis is correct.

What are the possible repercussions of failing to pay, or alternatively register for utility bills?

A common trope among self styled sovereign citizens is that there's effectively no real need to pay for utilities. Because they "can't" shut them off. I can easily imagine some human rights type legislation that states that it's illegal to discontinue one's electricity water and heating due to failure to pay or destitution. But I also can easily imagine that the cost would become a civil debt that may be pursued like others, through the county court and ultimately through bailiffs' visits. Unless, still completely speculating in the spirit of providing inspiration for prospective answers, when various utility service providers when privatised through deregulation and outsourcing and pawning off the functions of the government under Thatcher there were provisions to placate anti austerity forces by ensuring that the new privatised/outsourced entities were heavily regulated and didn't operate "too" much like a for profit business.

england-and-wales The household that doesn't pay its water bill cannot by law be cut off or restricted from the water supply . However, there have been reports that some companies have disconnected households anyway , claiming the premises were not occupied. In some circumstances the gas or electricity supplier may disconnect the domestic consumer that is not paying its bills. However, "Suppliers must take all reasonable steps to avoid disconnecting an energy supply for debt. It should always be a last resort and avoided wherever possible" ( Ofgem, the regulator ). The question asks for "possible" repercussions, not probable or usual. So here are some "possible" repercussions. The utility company may pursue the debt; first by mail, then via a debt collection agency and may ultimately seek court orders to resolve the matter one way or another. Generally, utility companies and the regulator Ofgem don't want things to get to court and will try to agree a repayment plan with the debtor and/or (in the case of electricity or gas) offer to install a prepayment meter. There are payment support options for households in financial difficulties but the question seems to be about outright refusals to pay. All creditors pursuing a debt are expected to follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims . This should be followed before a court order for a County Court Judgment for the debt can be made. Failure to follow the protocol does not invalidate the debt but can affect the court's decision. If the creditor wins a county court judgment (CCJ) against the debtor, the debtor will be obliged to pay the debt at a rate the court decides is appropriate. A CCJ is recorded on the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines. The Register is checked by companies to determine the credit-worthiness of applicants for credit cards, loans, mortgages, some bank accounts and rental agreements. If the debtor pays the full amount within one month of the CCJ, the record can be removed from the Register. If the debtor pays later, they can get the record marked as 'satisfied' - it will stay on the register for six years but searchers will see that the debtor paid the debt. If the debtor sticks to the payment plan the record can reflect this. Otherwise the record of the debt remains on the Register for six years. If the debtor still refuses to pay, the debtor may expect visits from bailiffs who will ask for payment and, failing that, the bailiffs might try to remove property to sell at auction to raise money to cover the debt and the bailiffs' costs. The creditor may seek an order for an attachment of earnings or an attachment of benefits / benefit deductions. In this case, the employer or benefits agency is ordered to divert money from the wages or benefits to the court that made the order, and the court sends the money to the creditor - the debtor doesn't receive that money. (The benefits attachment is likely more appropriate for non-payment of council tax.) The creditor may seek a third-party debt order, which orders the debtor's bank to freeze money in the debtor's account to the amount of the debt. The creditor may seek a charging order, which secures the debt against the debtor's property (e.g. their home if they own it). This can be followed up with an order for sale, which obliges the debtor to sell that property and the debt will be paid from the proceeds. The creditor could seek a court order that allows them to change the utility meter on the property to a prepayment meter. In this case the debtor has not been disconnected as such but they must pay (or get help to pay) in advance for their electricity or gas consumption. As noted earlier, the last resort is disconnection of the gas or electricity supply. In terms of criminal law, I don't know if any such debtors have been charged with illegal abstraction of electricity or gas but those seem like "possible" charges.

Would it be legal to eat cultured human meat?

A common trope in science fiction is that in the future meat is grown as a tissue culture in vats rather than as part of a living animal. This is obviously more humane as nothing with a brain has to be slaughtered. This is now moving out of science fiction, with some laboratory demonstrations of vat-grown meat. At present this is very expensive, but the hope is that industrialisation will bring the price down to something comparable to in-vivo meat. From this its an obvious small hop to the idea of growing human meat by starting with a small biopsy from a willing volunteer. Two works which include this are the short story The Food of the Gods by Arthur C. Clarke (in which a meat manufacturer reveals the dark secret of his competitor's hit product) and a passing reference to the " Morningside Cannibals " in Rule 34 by Charles Stross (in which the police had busted a group of friends who dined on cultured meat grown from each other, but then couldn't figure out what to charge them with). So the question is: would it be legal to eat cultured human meat produced in this way? And if so, would it be legal to sell it? I'm not including a jusridiction here, so feel free to describe the law anywhere.

In the US, cannibalism per se is generally legal, although murder is not, and there is the possibility of civil action for desecrating a corpse, or a low-level criminal prohibition against illegal disposition of a human corpse . Chicken Little scenarios overcome such legal impediments given existing US law, though there's no reason to think that when the technology develops, the laws will remain the same. Idaho maintains a law against cannibalism , but that prohibition forbids consumption of "flesh or blood of a human being". This would get us into the sticky matter of determining whether stuff manufactured using human cells is "flesh of a human being".

Camera to monitor mailbox

A community has a row of mailboxes, as opposed to a mailbox at each address. This is common in the rural USA. Since the covid-19 pandemic, people occasionally drive by and steal the mail. Several homeowners have since gotten locking mailboxes, and one considered putting up a webcam at the site as a deterrent. What's the law here?

There is no mailbox-specific law. You can take pictures in public, and you can put a camera to take pictures on your property. Whether you can install a camera in a particular place depends on who owns that place. Of course, you also can't aim it to peer into a nearby residence; and it has to be a video-only camera (unattended recording of audio is illegal without the consent of the thief). In some cases, mega-boxes are owned by the USPS so you would need USPS permission. There is a widespread false narrative that the USPS owns all mailboxes, but the USPS does not say that nor does the US Code. USPS describes two kinds of cluster-boxes , private and USPS-owned. The USPS offers no statements on permission or its denial to install a cameras inside a USPS-owned box, so you would have to ask the local post office in case your box is USPS-owned.

Does selling certificates from Let&#39;s Encrypt violate their ToS?

A company I (unfortunately) worked for in the past is selling Let's Encrypt certificates for about 10€/month. I don't need to tell you that these certificates are free for everyone. The customers are not getting any information about what certificate they are buying. Is it against the ToS of Let's Encrypt to do this?

According to Josh Aas, Internet Security Research Group (ISRG) Executive Director, (the umbrella 501(c)(3) for Let's Encrypt): "It is not against our terms to charge for services using our certificates, though we'd strongly prefer that HTTPS just be part of every offering as a default with no additional fees." My host sells SSL letsencrypt certificates - Help - Let's Encrypt Community Support That said, what your old company is doing is charging for their time and expertise (aided possibly by their own automated software they developed) to install SSL certificates for their own webhosting customers on their own servers. The company is not reselling the SSLs; they are selling the service of installing the certificates. It's not easy to install and automate the updating of 90-day SSLs from Let's Encrypt. So what your old company is doing is making it easy - for a fee - for their customers to use a somewhat difficult to use free service with the rest of their paid webhosting. The customers are not getting any information about what certificate they are buying. That could be. Check the TOS and information that each customer gets when they use the webhosting service with an SSL from Let's Encrypt. Many customers may only be concerned with if the SSL works, or not. And I'm sure the webhosting company does not divulge all aspects of their services to their customers, especially concerning security of their webservers and other business systems.

Would it be interstate fraud for a company to advertise a brand-new 1957 car?

A company advertises a brand-new 1957 car. They claim to have several in stock and will ship it right away. They know they don't have those cars and cant get them because they don't exist and never will be built again. You order a car and they take your money knowing the sale cannot happen. Isn't this fraud? If so, at what jurisdictional level would stealing money this way online relate to? State, interstate or federal government laws?

In general, knowingly making a false statement as part of a commercial or financial transaction, or as part of a contract, with the intention that the other party will rely on that statement and be harmed by this is likely to be fraud. However, there are some limitations. For the lie to be common-law fraud: The other party must in fact rely on the false statement. The other party must suffer harm as a result of relying on the false statement. The reliance must be reasonable. If a seller advertises having new 1957 model cars in 2020, a court might well find that this was so improbable that no reasonable person would have relied on hte statement, and that therefore it is not fraud. Whether the reliance is reasonable depends on the overall facts of the case, and the details might affect what is considered reasonable. In some jurisdictions such a false statement might be actionable false advertising even if it is not fraud. If the US mails are used as part of a fraud or attempted fraud 18 U.S. Code § 1341 applies. This law applies whether any actual harm occured or not, adn whether the victim relied on the false statement or not. It is commonly known as "mail fraud". 18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 47 is a US Federal law that prohibits a variety of false statements and false documents. Section 1001 of this chapter prohibits false statements and documents "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States" but I am not clear if this would apply in the case described in the question. Other sections of chapter 47 deal mostly with false statements made to the US Government, or to obtain money or benefits from the government, Or in connection with various particular regulated activities, and do not seem to apply to the case in the question. According to the Justia article on Fraud : Federal fraud statutes, along with most state laws, require proof of a “scheme or artifice” to defraud. The statutes do not provide an explicit definition of these terms, but courts have developed definitions through precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that the terms apply to any plan intended to deprive another of property, regardless of whether it would cause immediate financial harm. However, I think that a scheme such as the one described in the question would be more likely to be prosecuted by a US State than by the US Federal government. Either the state where the maker of the false statements was at the time of the statements, or the state where the victim was present could prosecute.

Is it legal to invite applicants to interview on the basis of sex?

A company advertises positions and receives far more applications from members of one sex than from the other. The company wants to interview the same number of people from each sex. It chooses the following policy: applicants are ordered within each sex and interviewed in pairs. If they run out of applicants from one sex the remaining applicants in the other sex will not be interviewed. Is this legal in the UK?

This is not legal It is generally unlawful to discriminate on the basis of gender: what you propose does exactly that. You are allowed to engage in positive action where a protected class suffers a disadvantage or their participation is disproportionately low. However, you are required to assess that the candidates are equally qualified in all other respects, only then can you take positive action - the proposed scheme excludes candidates without making such an assessment.

Can a company withdraw their decision without compensation?

A company allows eligible person to use their service at a discounted rate. Somebody would like to enjoy the discount but was not 100 percent sure about his eligibility. He then simply submitted the application, provided no fake documents, and the application was approved. The time was 2015. That person needs to renew his subscription annually, and the most recent (and successful) renewal occurred on March 2017. Before that the T&C has changed, of which the person is not aware. Additionally, the T&C applicable to the every-year subscription is the then-effective one at the time of renewal. On June 2017 the company decided to terminate the service to the person because they think he is not eligible. In the T&C the company does have the right to "verify the eligibility of the person and terminate the service to the ineligible at any time". However before the termination the person has made several successful payments (on a monthly basis), which are also accepted by the company. I may safely assume here that the company has approved the person's eligibility for this year's subscription? And since the most recent renewal there is no change in the T&C, and no change in the person's status since 2015, from which I would like to assume no reason for invalidation of his eligibility. Is my logic legally valid? Location: WA, United States

the company does have the right to "verify the eligibility of the person and terminate the service to the ineligible at any time" is pretty unambiguous. They have assessed your eligibility, determined you don't have one and have terminated the service. They are completely within their rights to do this. If you feel that they have assessed your eligibility wrongly then you can dispute their assessment - either through whatever dispute resolution is detailed in the contract or by going to court if the contract is silent. The fact that they previously assessed you as eligible (or didn't actually make an assessment) is irrelevant.

Can I claim against an entity who is in breach of a GPL license against a third party?

A company based in Taiwan has created derivative works (in particular, an operating system for their range of embedded devices) based upon many works licensed under the GNU GPL v3 (potentially from many different countries), has published the text of the GNU GPL v3 in their work, and has previously published the GPL-licensed source code used in creating their derivative works. However, this Taiwanese company has ceased publishing the GPL-licensed source code despite having modified it in order to continue development of their derivative works, which are then conveyed to the end-users of its products, placing it in breach of the GNU GPL v3 license covering the open-source code used to derive its software. As a software developer (based in Australia), I wish to develop software solutions that operate within the GPL-licensed portions of the Taiwanese company's operating system. However, since the Taiwanese company has not released the relevant GPL-licensed source code as the GNU GPL v3 license requires it to, I am unable to develop my own solutions for this platform. That is: A potential (Australian) client asks me to develop a software solution "that must run on (the Taiwanese company)'s newest operating system." Because the Taiwanese company has not released the relevant GPL-licensed source code for a significant amount of time (years) - and has never released source code for the most recent major version of its operating system despite it having been released around a year ago - I must answer my client, "No, (the Taiwanese company) has not released its GPL-licensed source code as it is legally obliged to do, and until it does, neither I nor any other entity other than (the Taiwanese company) can do so." As a result, I cannot enter into a contract with the potential client to perform the desired work, and the client must either contract (the Taiwanese company) to do the work, or change hardware platforms to one for which the relevant tools for me to do my work are available, at considerable expense to themselves.) Due to my inability to develop software solutions for the Taiwanese company's OS, caused by that company's breach of the GPL license that covers portions of its OS' source code, am I able to claim against the Taiwanese company for loss of income, in that its breach of the GPL license(s) of the works from which it derived its OS has led to my inability to perform work based upon its derivative work that, under the GNU GPL v3, is also required to be free and open-source?

If they make copies of GPL licensed software and distribute them, or they create derivative works of GPL licensed software, without following the terms of the GPL license, then they are committing copyright infringement. They can be sued for copyright infringement by the copyright holder, or by any of the copyright holders, if there is more than one. In your situation (your company can't make money because another company commits copyright infringement, and the other company can make money because they are committing copyright infringement), you might be able to sue them for anti-competitive behaviour. Because you are unable to compete because of their illegal behaviour. You'd need to check details with a local lawyer. (In Germany, this would be quite clearly "unfair competition" and illegal, but different countries will have different laws).

Can I publish a conceptual logo for a real company in a portfolio?

A company exists. I make a conceptual/redesigned logo for that company, though I have not been hired by them to do so. I publish my proposed redesign ( not their current logo/mark ) for this company in my online portfolio of graphic design work. Is this legal? Can I include a disclaimer in my portfolio that addresses this issue?

(Answer is for US jurisdiction) You're dealing more with trademark law than copyright law. A logo is a trademark, as it is the identifying service mark of a company. A trademark must be a unique identifying mark, specifically associated with the goods or services that a company offers in commercial trade. One type of trademark includes the company logo. To qualify as a trademark, a logo must be a unique mark used to identify and distinguish the company's goods or services offered in the marketplace. Difference Between a Logo & Trademark (LegalZoom) So: could your conceptual/redesigned logos be a problem for the real companies and their tradmerks? Maybe so. How? It's important to determine if there a possible "Likelihood of confusion" between your designs and the trademarked logos. A likelihood of confusion exists when consumers viewing the allegedly infringing mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified with a similar mark. Trademark infringement (Wex Legal Dictionary) If that company determined themselves that there was a "Likelihood of confusion", that could be one of the central arguments they would use to began a trademark infringement action against you. I understand that the logo will be in a portfolio of work not intended to be commercial and not intended to cause confusion, as stated in a disclaimer. But, any of what is called a "Likelihood of confusion" is a possible strike against you, and would be determined in court. Your possible defense, as a designer and graphic artist, could be "Fair Use": ...an alleged infringer may assert the defenses of fair use.... Fair Use (Wex Legal Dictionary) allows commentary or criticism that incidentally involves the use of a trademark so long as such use is for a purpose other than that normally made of a trademark. You are using the trademark for inspiration and commentary outside of the traditional uses of marketing and company identity. A disclaimer would also help illustrate that your portfolio is made up of conceptual samples of graphics work and not commissioned work and not real trademarks; it can show that you understand that your graphic work is not intended to be confused with the real trademarks. But very importantly, a disclaimer will not absolve you of legal liability. But, the fact remains that you have done a conceptual/redesigned logo for that company, and if that design is close enough - colors, design, name (or fictionalized name) of company - for casual observers to possibly be confused, then it is possible to draw legal action against yourself, even if that trademark holder realizes that the designs are conceptual and your disclaimer explains your position.

Do they own this trademark?

A company has been closing all my social media account, saying I infringe their copyright. Their documents say they have the name (example) 'Chocolate Cookie Extreme Baking Company'. In their text however they claim they own the name 'Chocolate Cookie' in the whole baking industry. Is this even possible? My name is 'ChocolateCookie Company' (note the lack of a space there) and therefor I think they are not in their right. However I do not own the trademark for 'ChocolateCookie Company'. Do they?

Yes, sort of possible - from the sounds of it they may well have registered the trademark "Chocolate Cookie" - and indeed their statement "in the whole baking industry" actually implies this may be the case - trademarks are typically assigned to an industry/sector - so McDonald Trucks can co-exist with McDonald Restaurants. Note that a Trademark is not a Copyright - I would be extremely surprised if you were infringing on their copyright - and if they are actually claiming that, you can probably challenge them. You are most likely infringing their trademark.

Can a customer claim background IP rights?

A company has sent me a contract with the following clauses. Does the following means that they can claim the IP on software I've created on the past, and make use of it? - even in the case we cease the agreement 4. Intellectual property Developer transfers ownership of the intellectual property rights in the New IP to Customer, with the exception of any Background IP. Developer grants a licence to Customer to the Background IP as described in the table below. ---------------------------------------------------- | licence condition | value | ---------------------------------------------------- | Parties | Developer grants to Customer | | Type | expansive licence | ---------------------------------------------------- Expansive license description Background IP: Background IP means the intellectual property rights owned by Developer: prior to the application of the Agreement; or created by Developer outside the scope of the Agreement.

The terms transfer IP rights only for the New IP, meaning that Customer would own the new stuff. Developer will still own their old stuff, but Customer will have the right to use the old stuff, depending on the license terms. If the license is as in your link , then it is forever (but this is a stub, so I assume that the license will be more specific and possibly restrictive). You retain all your rights to old stuff, customer will not pay royalties for the old stuff, and they can transfer or extend the license, or part of the license, to others.

Is it legal to lend out your computer with licensed software installed on it?

A company in Europe has temporarily given some of its computers with licensed Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Premium to a company in Asia. The European company is the client of the Asian company and the software is used for developing a web application for the client. Microsoft now insists the Asian company is making unauthorized use of the licensed software because the licenses are country specific and geographically limited. Microsoft now demands a separate purchase of the licenses by the Asian company; just uninstalling isn't good enough. This will cost $5999 per user. Can licenses really be this limiting? I edited my old question, because it was seeking specific legal advice. I hope its fine now.

The companies really need to speak to an IP lawyer as this question is seeking specific advice which this site is loathe to give out for fear of compouding issues. The answer would depend on the license agreements and enforceability in various jurisdictions. According to https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/0368d7ee-0eb3-4e3e-a143-4410969a15bb/eula-for-vs2010?forum=vssetup Microsoft says you cant rent out the software - but this applies to the "Pro" version - I could not find anything on the "Premium" version - so most likely Microsoft to have some clam. The flipside is how enforceable this EULA is - and this would probably vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It would be a very, very good idea to speak to a lawyer before letting Microsoft come onto the premises - as "inviting them" to do this is almost certainly not going to improve the Asians company's case and will allow Microsoft to go fishing further and make it easier for them to expand on and collect evidence should they decide to pursue the matter.

Can a company get a certification?

A company is "an artificial entity recognized by the law as a legal person that exists independently with rights and liability" * . So the law recognises them as a person. Are they therefore allowed to do person things? For instance, can a company earn a certification, like a degree? In UK/US/Canada, there are laws restricting what people can do based on their credentials - mostly relating to financial services. I'm wondering if it's possible for a company to become credentialed, or if there is provision in the law to disallow them? As an example, to offer financial advice in the UK, a person needs to have a recognised qualification. Could a company earn such a qualification, allowing the company to make recommendations? I suspect this would be practically impossible - a company can't physically hold a pen, and therefore is unlikely to be able to take an exam. But I'm wondering if this is addressed in law, or if it is technically permitted and just never done due to practical constraints. As a tangential, sub-question, some expert systems (e.g. IBM Watson) are becoming very adept at offering advise. They can't legally do so, due to not being a person, but I wonder if an AI could be considered part of a company, and therefore able to certify and act independently of the companies human constituents. Would this allow a company to circumvent the practical constraints, and earn a legally-recognized qualification?

In the US, the states regulate design professions (architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, land surveying, etc). A list of web sites to see land survey laws and regulations is at enter link description here , other professions are similar. In most states, not only must the regulated services be performed by a licensed natural person, but if the professional is acting as an employee, the employing company must meet certain standards. Sometimes the employing company itself must apply for recognition by the appropriate state board as a company that employs design professionals. In other states, the company need not register, but must have one or more design professionals in a high-ranking position in the company, such as on the board of directors.

Company advertising something $100 cheaper than it is

A company is advertising a product on Google for $44. However, after going to their website, I found that the product is $130. After contacting them, they said in the TOS they state this: Product Pricing: All prices are subject to change without notice, and may make changes to any products or services offered at the Store, or to the applicable prices for any such products or services, at any time, without notice. Are they meant to change the advertisment to the real value after changing the price?

If the business is displaying multiple pricing and if they or you are in Australia then the Australian consumer law says: the business must withdraw the product or service from sale until the multiple pricing problem is fixed, if you choose an item or service that has multiple different prices displayed or advertised and the business can’t withdraw the product or service from sale and fix the error, you are entitled to buy it for the lowest price. In addition, the law prohibits them from making misleading claims - their terms of service march dangerously close to that line. Depending exactly how they handle this may put them on the wrong side of the law: If you draw their attention to this and they refuse to sell you the product at any price until they fix the Google price, then this is legal. If you draw their attention to this and they do or would sell it to you for the higher price before they fixed the Google price, then this is illegal. If you draw their attention to this and they do or would sell it to you for the lowest price before they fixed the Google price, then this is legal. Of course, if they are a foreign retailer you may have difficulty in making them comply with Australian law even though they are obliged to.

Bait and switch - written vs oral obligation

A company is advertising a sale stating that I will receive a discount site wide for 50% off. A hyperlink to the sale clearly shows the sale applies to all available products, further in each one of those products available durations (ex. 1,3 and annual). Finally, by clicking on a link I can take advantage of that sale as advertised (vs having to call and talk to someone). After the purchase, I have access to the product, I receive a receipt and other information clearly showing the sale is valid and final. That being said... I call the same company prior to purchasing the product via the advertised sale link. A representative from that company verbally states the sale is really only available annually and not any other time frame (I'm not sure if it matters but he did not ask me to not purchase because of the error). The call ends, and I go ahead and purchase the product using the sale price (I took screenshots of the advertisement and the company's website showing the sale). He calls me the next day and said that the purchase was done behind his back and that he told me it was only available annually. Therefore the advertised terms are not valid and his statement is. Am I wrong or is what he saying will hold water? Can they just change their mind (I can't find any disclaimers) From what I've described is all of this bordering on false advertising? I'm doing research to find a case as well. If someone has a case similar please let me know. PS We are in different states.

Do you have a contract? It depends on the website’s terms but almost certainly not. It is standard practice in e-commerce terms and conditions that your selecting “buy” and giving the vendor money does not create a contract; you are merely making an offer that the vendor can accept or reject. For example, Amazon’s terms are clear that the contract only comes into existence when they dispatch the goods, until then they are free to cancel your order and return your money. Here the vendor rejected the offer. Is this false advertising? Maybe. It would depend on the specifics of the ad and whether, overall, a reasonable person would be mislead or deceived. It’s possible you misunderstood but that doesn’t necessarily make it misleading or deceptive. I misunderstand a lot of things; that doesn’t mean they were objectively misleading or deceptive. Notwithstanding, a business does not have to make good on false advertising. An incorrect advertised price does not force the business to anccept offers of that price. It may force a correction and may require the item to not be sold until the price is corrected and it may expose the business to fines, but it does not give anyone the right to buy at that price.

Is a Florida corporation that shows no profit or losses required to file taxes?

A company is incorporated in the state of Florida; it was formed by a wantrepreneur. This company has no employees, no location, no profits, and no losses; the only proof this company exists is on paper. Is this company required to file taxes for the previous year, and if they don't, will they face any punishment?

Is this company required to file taxes for the previous year, and if they don't, will they face any punishment? Yes. Every corporation is required to file an IRS Form 1120 every year (the same rule does not apply to trusts or limited liability companies), even if it has no revenue or expenses. See 26 USC § 6012(a)(2) and Treas. Reg. § 1.6012-2 ("Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (g)(1) of this section with respect to charitable and other organizations having unrelated business income and to certain foreign corporations, respectively, every corporation , as defined in section 7701(a)(3) , subject to taxation under subtitle A of the Code shall make a return of income regardless of whether it has taxable income or regardless of the amount of its gross income. "). The penalty, assuming that no tax is actually due as per the question, is a modest fail to file a return fine that was $210 in 2018. 26 USC § 6651(a) and (i); Rev. Proc. 2018-18 . The fine will be $215 in 2019 ($205 for an S-corporation). Rev. Proc. 2018-57 . A state income tax must be filed by a Florida corporation only if it has income in the state in a given year. So, while there is a federal requirement and penalty, there is not a state one.

Is it legal for a company to offer free coding courses to women only?

A company is offering free coding courses to women and non-binary individuals only. Is this kind of sex-based discrimination legal?

Yes, it's legal. It would be lawful discrimination on objectively and reasonably justified grounds Here's why: On the face of it, this is a case of direct discrimination contrary to Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 : (1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. however, the company may argue that they are taking positive action in line with Section 158 of the Act (emphasis mine): (1) This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that— (a) persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, (b) persons who share a protected characteristic have needs that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it, or (c) participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low. (2) This Act does not prohibit P from taking any action which is a proportionate means of achieving the aim of— (a) enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to overcome or minimise that disadvantage, (b) meeting those needs, or (c) enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to participate in that activity. It is likely that they will be able to justify direct discrimination on the grounds of positive action. The Government's Explanatory Notes on the section express the intent of the legislation as such (emphasis mine): This clause provides that the Bill does not prohibit the use of positive action measures to alleviate disadvantage experienced by people who share a protected characteristic, reduce their under-representation in relation to particular activities, and meet their particular needs. It will, for example, allow measures to be targeted to particular groups, including training to enable them to gain employment, or health services to address their needs. Any such measures must be a proportionate way of achieving the relevant aim. A clear example is provided: Having identified that its white male pupils are underperforming at maths, a school could run supplementary maths classes exclusively for them. Furthermore, there is case law to establish that such positive action is entirely lawful: R (Adath Yisroel Burial Society and another) v Inner North London Senior Coroner [2018] EWHC 969 (Admin) (emphasis mine): Before leaving this topic we would stress that section 158 does not concern what is sometimes called “positive discrimination”; it is more limited and concerns only what the legislation calls “positive action”. In general “positive discrimination” is unlawful under the Equality Act. Therefore, as a matter of domestic law, prioritisation of some deaths for religious reasons would not be unlawful; to the contrary, it would be consistent with section 158. That position is mirrored in Convention jurisprudence. The point can be well illustrated by the decision in Jakóbski v Poland (2012) 55 EHRR 8. In that case the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Poland. He adhered strictly to the Mahayana Buddhist dietary rules and requested a vegetarian diet for that reason. This was not provided for him. The prison authorities stated that they were not obliged to prepare special meals for prisoners on the basis of religious belief as a matter of Polish law and that to do so would put excessive strain on them. The application before the court succeeded under Article 9. For that reason the Court did not consider it necessary to address separately the right to equal treatment in the enjoyment of Convention rights in Article 14 (to which we return below). However, in our view, the case of Jakóbski is a good illustration of the principle of equality at work in cases of this kind. What on its face looks like a general policy which applies to everyone equally may in fact have an unequal impact on a minority. In other words, to treat everyone in the same way is not necessarily to treat them equally. Uniformity is not the same thing as equality. While this judgement concerns itself with positive action on religious grounds, it has broad application to positive action on grounds of sex too, and would be consistent with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights —namely that if the discrimination can be objectively and reasonably justified, it is lawful.

Identifying tort actions

A company known as "Retailer" exclusively sold another company, known as "Manufacturer" products. However, "Retailer" decided to cut ties and decided not to sell "Manufacturer" products. "Manufacturer" placed several ads in several newspapers that the "Manufacturer" had discontinued distributing goods to the "Retailer" and it was not current on its payments to "Manufacturer". John Doe, owner of "Retailer", met with Jane Doe, owner of "Manufacturer", to discuss the ad. John found out that it was an accounting error and that there was nothing wrong with "retailer's" credit. During their meeting words were exchanged and in anger Jane slapped John before she left. What viable tort actions might be brought based on the above case description including the parties involved.

Fun Bar question :) The manufacturer may have a claim against retailer under contract law because an exclusive agreement usually carries with it the obligation to sell the goods in good faith. Termination clauses and why retailer decided to cut ties will be important. Retailer may make a claim against manufacturer for libel if the newspaper ads were not true, but based on the description, it was likely all factually correct. There may be a tortuous interference with business in there, but unlikely unless it causes Retailer to lose business in an easy-to-prove way. There may also be a false advertising claim to raise, but that may be more difficult to prove and is designed to protect consumers, not other companies, and there doesn't appear to be a consumer harm here. John likely has a good claim for battery against Jane, and perhaps against her company, "Retailer" as well for the slap. There may be a negligent hiring claim against retailer if it should have known that Jane was violent, although I am not sure how this works because Jane is also the owner. (There is almost certainly more here, because once intentional torts come into play, you can go on and on. There is almost always a trespass, but I don't quite see it here.)

What is the state of intellectual property when the owner goes bankrupt?

A company makes a great game called "AwesomeGame" that costs 20€. They sell thousands of copies of the game, but ultimately go bankrupt. What is the status of the game at that point? Do any intellection-property rights or protections of it still exist?

A bankrupt company's assets are transferred to its creditors. This includes intangible assets such as trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property. Whoever ends up with the rights to the game can continue to market and distribute it, or use legal means to prevent others from doing so.

Is a similar name and synonym to existing brand a trademark infringement?

A company named Blackboard exists, with trademarks on the name. I would like to use the brand name "Greenboard." Is there any possibility of trademark infringement if I use this name? I don't think it would cause confusion among consumers I did not know the company existed when I came up with the name I would have distinct logos for my own brand We would be businesses in the same industry with competing products

The legal standard is whether the allegedly infringing mark is confusingly similar to the mark that is allegedly infringed. This is a mixed question of fact and law usually determined by the trier of fact (which is the jury, in a jury trial where there is a colorable dispute of fact regarding the issue).

If the terms of service of a software change, do they only apply to versions released after the date?

A company offers a downloadable product on their website. The product has been in development for years and there have been many versions released. The company has a set of terms and conditions that apply to the software. If at some point the company decides to change the terms of conditions, do the updated terms and conditions apply to all versions of the software, or versions released after the change? If the user does not download the new version of the software, can they perform actions that may not be legal under the new terms and conditions, but are legal under the ones that were in effect when they downloaded the software?

Not necessarily If the terms allow for unilateral revisions (most do) and if you are explicitly informed of the change (e.g. by email) and if you consent to the change (e.g. by continuing to use the software) then the new terms apply to you.

Does the GDPR cover / apply to (in any way) photography at a workplace event?

A company organises a staff event during business hours. Say a hackathon or similar. The company arranges a photographer and videographer to record pictures, footage, presentations etc. Speaking specifically about GDPR, does the company need to seek any level of consent from the attendees to use those photographs or video for published material covering the event for use internally, or for sharing with partner organisations (e.g. here's a brochure of how the day went, or here's an intranet article, or here's a video to show what we're up to).

Probably. Consent is one of 6 basis for dealing with personal data. If one of the other 5 doesn’t cover it (like consent has been given as part of the employment contract) then specific consent will be needed.

What does this final section regarding the &quot;termination of the binding provisions&quot; in this contract mean?

A company recently offered me a great position as the head of their IT Security division. The job being offered is contingent upon my signature signing a lengthy employment, NDA, Noncompete, contract that has a few questionable lines I could really use help in understanding them as normal English. What does the following section from the employment contact mean in plain English: Termination. The binding provisions may be terminated by mutual written consent of the parties; Provided, however, that the termination of the Binding Provisions shall not affect the liability of a party for breach of any of the Binding Provisions prior to termination. Can this be explained in plain English to assist me in making my decision on whether or not to sign the contract?

Termination. The binding provisions may be terminated by mutual written consent of the parties; Provided, however, that the termination of the Binding Provisions shall not affect the liability of a party for breach of any of the Binding Provisions prior to termination. It basically says that you and the company can free each other from the contract or any part of it — by signing another agreement. This is limited though: if either of you have breached the original contract and become liable (e.g. one of you owes the other heaps of money for damages), then those liabilities will remain. ... which is nonsense of course — because you always can free each other from any liabilities to each other if you both want it.

Data deleted prior to GDPR access request

A company recieves a request to access personal data. They realize that they got the request two weeks after data collection; by this time all data is deleted. What would a company reply if such deletion was preinformed in the privacy policy of the company? Can a company just tell user they don't have the data or not?

Paragraph 1 of GDPR Article 15 says: The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him or her are being processed, and, where that is the case, access to the personal data ... (b) the categories of personal data concerned; (c) the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed ... Paragraph 3 of article 15 provides that: The controller shall provide a copy of the personal data undergoing processing. ... This clearly includes the possibility that some personal data may not be "undergoing processing", remembering that storage is a form of processing under the GDPR. Recital 63 says that: Every data subject should therefore have the right to know and obtain communication in particular with regard to the purposes for which the personal data are processed, where possible the period for which the personal data are processed, ... GDPR Article 5 paragraph 1 (b) says in relevant part that personal information should be : collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; Thus when the purpose for wich PI was collected has ended, and there is no further lawful basis to store or otherwise process that PI, it should be deleted. Recital 39 says that: ...the period for which the personal data are stored is limited to a strict minimum ... ... In order to ensure that the personal data are not kept longer than necessary, time limits should be established by the controller for erasure or for a periodic review. So again, it is not only possible but desirable that PI once collected may be deleted once the purpose for which it was collected has been satisfied. GDPR article 13 paragraph 1 says: Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected from the data subject, the controller shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with ... (c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing; Paragraph 2 (a) adds that the controller shall also provide the Data Subject with: the period for which the personal data will be stored, or if that is not possible, the criteria used to determine that period; It is thus again contemplated that some PI will be stored only for a limited period. Where PI data is collected, but has been erased prior to the request for access, the previous processing of that data should be included in the categories listed under art 15 par 1 (b), and its recipients under art 15 par 1 (c). The period of retention should have been disclosed upon collection. That (along with the other required information) should be a sufficient reply.

Can I ask my employer for details held about me?

A company runs a transformation exercise. It asked for employees to fill out answers against questions, which are submitted to a portal and assessed by a number of employees and scored. These scores, along with the rationale the assessors recorded, were used to put the employees into various roles in the "new model", as well as some on performance plans where the scores indicated improvement was required. The company fed back the assessments verbally. They have, at the moment, withheld the scores and rationale/assessor comments from the assessed employees. They have been asked numerous times, and there is some anecdotal evidence that line managers are being asked to refuse such requests. This is in the UK. What mechanisms exist to allow the employees to gain that data, if any? Can the employees ask for other data, like e-mails written about them or instructions given? It seems like a Subject Access Request or GDPR would help, but despite asking on these specific terms, the employer has refused to provide answers. Who should the request, if this was possible, go to and what would need to be included?

It sounds like the information can be (and is intended to be) linked to specific named individuals, so it is likely to constitute Personal Data as defined in GDPR. Your point of contact would be the Data Controller appointed by the company who would be able to provide a response that could be used in legal proceedings. Could you contact the Information Commissioner's Office if the company (or other Data Controller) was unwilling to provide the information held? I'm sure you could, but I'm not sure where it would get you. I'm not convinced there could be a good outcome to this - the best I can imagine would be the provision of the data, but where would you go from there? If what's intended here is an attempt to argue with the assessments or to make trouble for the company, it would be best avoided.

Is there a legal procedure in debt collection?

A company sells your data to a debt collection agency without proven attempts to collect payments from you for years. A law firm sends you a letter of demand when they have not attempted to contact you before that. The context of the situation can be found here What does it mean when an obligation is 'waived'?

A law firm sends you a letter of demand when they have not attempted to contact you before that. A letter of demand is the usual first contact. What else would the law firm be writing to you about other than to demand that you pay what you owe their client? Is there a legal procedure in debt collection? In england-and-wales , the majority of debt claims end up in the County Court which is governed by the Civil Procedure Rules . Before bringing a claim, the parties are expected to follow the Practice Direction – Pre-action Conduct and Protocols . If there is a specific protocol, then you follow that; otherwise you follow the general one in the above link, pursuant to Para. 1(2) . A list of specific protocols can be found at Para. 18 but note that this is slightly inaccurate and you should also check the list here . If the debt is being pursued by a business against an individual then the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims applies. I won't go into detail on the procedures themselves since you can read them directly in the links I've provided, other than to say that they do contain provisions relating to what information should be communicated between the parties prior to initiating proceedings. For example, under Para. 6 of the general protocol: The steps will usually include— (a) the claimant writing to the defendant with concise details of the claim. The letter should include the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated; If a party fails to comply with the applicable pre-action protocol, this does not affect the outcome of the case (i.e. whether they win and if so, what they are awarded). Instead, it gives the Court discretion to apply sanctions in relation to costs and interest. Under Para. 16 of the general protocol: The court will consider the effect of any non-compliance when deciding whether to impose any sanctions which may include— (a) an order that the party at fault pays the costs of the proceedings, or part of the costs of the other party or parties; (b) an order that the party at fault pay those costs on an indemnity basis; (c) if the party at fault is a claimant who has been awarded a sum of money, an order depriving that party of interest on that sum for a specified period, and/or awarding interest at a lower rate than would otherwise have been awarded; (d) if the party at fault is a defendant, and the claimant has been awarded a sum of money, an order awarding interest on that sum for a specified period at a higher rate, (not exceeding 10% above base rate), than the rate which would otherwise have been awarded.

There&#39;s a (potentially large) mistake in my contract, is there a need to address it?

A company that's using the contracting firm said they'd pay me $X per hour, and the same amount for hours over 40 in a given week. Apparently there's an exemption from the 1.5x pay for certain engineering positions, which I was told this was. I was (and am) happy with the pay we agreed on. So the contracting firm sent me a copy of the standard contract to read and sign. But the contract said I was to be paid 1.5x the amount of my normal rate for overtime. Before signing, I sent them a message saying, "I think this is a mistake." And they came back and said, "You're right, it's supposed to be 1x for overtime." They sent me another copy, but it had the same mistake in it. At that point, I signed it since we were on the same page regarding the terms even though it was still wrong. My thinking was that it was just a piece of (digital) paper that was wrong, and in my favor anyway. The actual contract (the intangible agreement between the two parties) was correct and mutually agreed upon. My question is, with the contract as it stands, is there any risk that I am taking by not fixing it? I'm getting paid the amount I expect (1x for overtime) and have no intentions to pull more out of them just because the written contract is wrong. I don't want to be in a bad situation, but I don't want to go through the hassle of changing something that doesn't matter either. Note: I live/work in New York state

Clearly in this case the writing does not reflect your actual agreement. If you were to bill for 1.5x your normal rate for hours over 40/week, relying on the writing, and it came to court, you might win, based on the general rule that matters explicitly covered in the written agreement are treated as final, and evidence of contradictory oral agreements are often not accepted to contradict the contract document. This is known as the parole evidence rule. But you don't plan to issue such a bill, so that won't come up. I don't see that you are at any legal risk. But you could send the client a letter saying that you signed the contract document so as not to hold the job up, but you think there is a mistake in it (pointing out exactly where and what the error is). This would help establish your ethics and good faith, so that if somehow there was a problem over this later (although that seems unlikely) you can't be accused of any improper actions. Keep a copy of any such letter. By the way, if you are an independent contractor, the governmental standard for overtime does not normally apply (in the US). If you are an employee of a consulting company, it may or may not, depending on your salary level and the kind of work you do. An independent contractor can contract for a higher rate for overtime hours, if the client is willing to agree. Many clients will not be willing.

Can I have a patent by discovering new application of a chemical compound

A compound called CxHyOz in the history has been discovered as an antibiotic for killing bacteria. But in the future when I discover a new application of it, for example I can use it as an efficient treatment for diabetes that no one discovered before. Is that possible for me to register a patent for this new discovery? What is the benefits of registering this kind of patent?

You may be able to obtain a patent for a method of using the compound to treat diabetes, so long as the method is novel and non-obvious. If the prior art does not describe using the compound (or another compound that one of ordinary skill in the art might expect to act similarly) to treat diabetes in any way, then the method might be as broad as any way of treating diabetes with the compound. Otherwise, you may have to narrow the method to a specific treatment protocol (e.g., administering X amount in Y manner). And it's possible that you still won't get the patent, depending on what prior art is out there already. However, you would not be able to obtain a patent for the compound itself, nor for the mere fact that the compound can be used as a diabetes treatment—only for a method of exploiting that fact.

I am not allowed to purchase Tech B unless already a customer of System A from same Company, which I do not want/need ..legal?

A computer system is listed for sale on a company's website with the caveat that I must already be a customer of their gene sequencing platform, which I am not interested in / do not need, as I do not work in this field of study. The computer system is not a promotional or discounted item, nor is it in any way dependent upon the sequencing hardware for it to function. The computer system is 100% standalone is advertised separately from the sequencing platform. Is this "full line forcing"? is this acceptable / legal business practice?

This is freedom of contract The company sells one product to everyone, System A. The company also sells Tech B to only its pre-existing customers. That is not bundling under the general ideas of antitrust law or Product Bundling under competition laws, as you don't have any secondary items, and two wholly distinct sales. The company offers its products separately. The best equivalent would be a line in a restaurant menu that lists "extra patty for your burger" that is only sold as an option for your Hamburger but not alone . Just rephrase the offer to "Tech B for our customers of System A". There might even be reasons why Tech B is not offered on its own and can't be bought by non-customers of System A. The most simple would be that Tech B is pre-installed with System A - but it is not bundling because you already need to own System A to buy Tech B and Tech B is not offered as machine that can run system A but machine set up to run System A - which is not a bundle but a different product, just like gluten-free cake is to normal cake. Nothing forbids negotiating That doesn't mean that legally you can't get the Tech B: you just would need to negotiate with them for it, outside of the normally offered items.

Whose meaning prevails in a consumer contract of adhesion?

A consumer calls his bank and requests that his account be closed. The bank says that the account has been closed, and changes the status of the account such that the account can no longer be used to make purchases. However, it does not disclose that a balance remains. The consumer is subsequently charged a late fee. The consumer files suit, alleging that it was a misrepresentation for the bank to claim that his account had been "closed", as a closed account--by definition--cannot carry a balance. The bank argues that, under the accepted industry usage of a "closed" credit card account, an account can carry a balance. The bank also points to a sentence in the credit card agreement that states "[e]ven if your account is closed or suspended, you must still repay all amounts you owe under the account". The consumer argues that the industry usage is irrelevant. The contract was not between two parties within the banking industry, it was between a bank and a consumer. In common usage, a "closed" account cannot carry a balance -- Merriam-Webster defines a "closed account" as "an account whose total debit and total credit entries are equal and show no balance". He also points to the fact that, under the terms of the contract, the only party with an express right to "close" the account is the bank. The single reference to the consumer in connection with account termination uses the word "cancel" rather than "close" suggesting that the parties have different termination rights. At best, the contract is ambiguous and has the capacity to mislead the average consumer. Whose meaning prevails? Below are all of the references to account closure, cancellation, or suspension in the cardmember agreement. Under a section titled "default": If your account is in default, we may close it without notice and require you to pay your unpaid balance immediately. We can also begin collection activities. To the extent permitted by law, if you are in default because you have failed to pay us, we will require you to pay our collection costs, attorneys' fees, court costs, and all other expenses of enforcing our rights under this agreement. Under a section titled "automatic charges": You may set up scheduled and repeat transactions to your account. If your account is closed or suspended , or your account number changes, you will need to contact any persons that you are paying by automatic transactions. Under a section titled "authorization of transactions / closing your account": We are not obligated to honor every transaction, and we may close or suspend your account . Sometimes we close accounts based not on your actions or inactions, but on our business needs. In the context of "what happens if my account is closed or suspended?": Even if your account is closed or suspended , you must still repay all amounts you owe under the account. In the context of "annual membership fee": Your monthly billing statement will tell you how to cancel your account and avoid future annual fees.

The bank's From the quoted terms it is clear that the contract contemplates a potential non-zero balance at the time an account is closed. There is no suggestion that an account must have a zero balance in order to be closed; indeed, the terms clearly spell out the consequences if an account is closed with a non-zero balance. The bank's reference to industry usage, like the consumer's reference to dictionary definitions of "closed" is irrelevant when the meaning is clear on the face of the contract. Extrinsic materials are only relevant when the meaning is ambiguous and the quoted terms leave no room for ambiguity: a closed account can have a non-zero balance.

Can a consumer arbitration agreement be applied retroactively?

A consumer has two credit card accounts with a bank: Account A (opened in 2010) and Account B (opened and closed in 2017). In 2019, the bank amends the cardmember agreement for Account A to introduce an arbitration agreement. While that arbitration agreement was introduced in the context of the cardmember agreement for Account A, it appears to encompass claims about Account B: All claims or disputes between you and us about or relating in any way to your account, any prior account , your cardmember agreement with us (including any future amendments), any prior cardmember agreement , or our relationship are referred to as "Claims" for purposes of this agreement to arbitrate [...] All Claims are subject to arbitration whether they arose in the past, may currently exist, or may arise in the future [...] Arbitration will apply even if your account is closed As a matter of contract interpretation, i.e. assuming there is no dispute about the formation of the arbitration agreement, does it apply to claims about Account B? The full agreement: This arbitration agreement provides that all disputes between you and [Bank] must be resolved by BINDING ARBITRATION whenever you or we choose to submit or refer a dispute to arbitration. By accepting this arbitration agreement you GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO GO TO COURT (except for matters that may be taken to a small claims court). Arbitration will proceed on an INDIVIDUAL BASIS, so class actions and similar proceedings will NOT be available to you. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REJECT THIS AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATION, BUT IF YOU WISH TO REJECT IT, YOU MUST DO SO PROMPTLY. If you do not reject this agreement to arbitration by [opt-out date] in the manner set forth below, then: * In arbitration, your rights will be determined by a NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR and NOT A JUDGE OR JURY. * The procedures in arbitration are simpler and more limited than rules applicable in court. * Arbitrator decisions are subject to VERY LIMITED REVIEW BY A COURT. If you do not reject this agreement by [opt-out date], you or we may elect to resolve any Claim by arbitration. For purposes of this agreement to arbitrate, "you" includes any co-applicant or authorized user on your account, or anyone else connected with you or claiming through you; and "we" or "us" includes [bank], all of their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, predecessors, employees, and related persons or entities and all third parties who are regarded as agents or representatives of us in connection with the account, or the subject matter of the claim or dispute at issue. All claims or disputes between you and us about or relating in any way to your account, any prior account, your cardmember agreement with us (including any future amendments), any prior cardmember agreement, or our relationship are referred to as "Claims" for purposes of this agreement to arbitrate. Claims include, for example, claims or disputes arising from or relating in any way to transactions involving your account; any interest, charges, or fees assessed on your account; any service(s) or programs related to your account; any communications related to your account; and any collection or credit reporting of your account. Claims also include claims or disputes arising from or relating in any way to advertising and solicitations, or the application for, approval, or establishment of your account. Claims are subject to arbitration regardless of whether they are based on contract, tort, statute, regulation, common law or equity, or whether they seek legal or equitable remedies. All Claims are subject to arbitration whether they arose in the past, may currently exist, or may arise in the future. Arbitration will apply even if your account is closed, sold, or assigned; you pay us in full any outstanding debt you owe; or you file for bankruptcy. In the event that your account is sold and/or assigned, we retain our right to elect arbitration of Claims by you and you retain your right to elect arbitration of Claims by us. If you are covered by the Military Lending Act, then you are not bound by this arbitration agreement, and to the extent required by the Military Lending Act, nothing in this agreement will be deemed a waiver of the right to legal recourse under any otherwise applicable provision of state or federal law. The only other exception to the arbitration requirement is that you have the right to file and pursue a Claim in a small claims court instead of arbitration if the Claim is in that court’s jurisdiction and proceeds on an individual basis. If you initiate a Claim in arbitration, no changes to the terms of this agreement to arbitrate that are made after we receive your Claim will apply to that Claim. This agreement to arbitrate is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.

If you accept the terms, yes The bank has proposed a change to your contract, you can either accept that change or reject that change. The wording of the change has given very clear instructions on how it can be rejected. So, how can it be accepted? Well, acceptance can be by deeds as well as words so if you continue to use your accounts after the date for rejection, then you will have accepted the change.

Which choice-of-law provision applies when there are multiple legal agreements?

A consumer residing in North Carolina opens a credit card account with a national bank, "signing" three separate agreements: (1) a cardmember agreement, (2) an online service agreement, (3) an electronic communication consent agreement. The cardmember agreement contains a broad choice-of-law provision stating "This agreement and your account will be governed by federal law, as well as the law of Delaware , and will apply no matter where you live or use this account." The online service agreement also contains a broad provision stating "This Agreement and its enforcement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York , without regard to any choice of law provision, except for section 5-1401 of the New York General Obligations Law, which does apply, and shall inure to the benefit of our successors and assigns, whether by merger, consolidation, or otherwise. The account(s), products and services accessed via the Online Service shall be governed by laws of the applicable account agreements." The electronic communication consent agreement does not contain a choice-of-law provision. Consumer sues in NC district court and wishes to argue a state UDAP violation. While most states have UDAP statutes, they vary in their consumer-friendliness . The unfair act involves non-receipt of paperless billing statements -- which could arguably arise under either of the three agreements. Which state UDAP statute applies?

The provisions of the credit card account agreement will be governed by Delaware law, except to the extent to North Carolina public policy overrides it. The provisions of the online services agreement will be governed by New York law, except to the extent to North Carolina public policy overrides it. The electronic communications agreement will be governed by the law of the place with the most significant connection to any disputed issues arising under it. It could also be considered to be an extension of the online services agreement rather than a separate agreement. UDAP is an acronym referring the state deceptive trade practices acts. The unfair act involves non-receipt of paperless billing statements. Even with this level of detail, I don't believe it is possible to know in advance which of the agreements is implicated and which state's laws will be held to apply (or if the differences between the laws of the candidate states is even material on the issue in question). These issues are decided on a case by case basis when there is a mishmash of facts and the outcomes are not terribly predictable. It also isn't obvious that there is a provision covering the conduct in question in any of the three potentially relevant states. The Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act doesn't appear to clearly apply to financial services at all. New York's application to financial services is quite narrow and subject to an exception for conduct in conformity with federal law. A failure to provide an invoice, without more, isn't necessarily a deceptive trade practice at all. All in all, there isn't a straightforward or easy answer to this question that can be reached from the information provided.

What could be meant by a document purporting to be signed &quot;For&quot; a company?

A contract indicates that it is signed " For and on Behalf of [ACME Limited] ." The notion of being signed "on behalf of" seems to be invoking the notion of S43(1)(b), Companies Act 2006 . However, what possible legal provisions or legal doctrines might the word(s) "For and" be trying to invoke, and what other purpose could they possibly serve apart from what is already achieved by "on Behalf of"? In other words, what is the difference between signing "for" a company and signing "on behalf of it," and what is the difference between something being signed "for and on behalf of," and something being signed merely "on behalf of," a given company?

In other words, what is the difference between signing "for" a company and signing "on behalf of it"? Nothing. Companies are famously illiterate - they can't read or write and need someone with fingers to do it for them. In fact, everything that a company does is done through an agent. There is no difference between a document signed "for" a company, "on behalf of" a company, "for and on behalf of" a company, or one that's just signed. Modern usage is far less formal than it used to be and what you are seeing here is a holdover from a time when people used to put rhetorical flourishes on legal documents for no good reason: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=for+and+on+behalf+of&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3#

When is payment by a mailed check made?

A contract is executed between two Indiana LLCs which obligates the payor to "pay $100 on the 1st of each month" in exchange for goods/services. No other terms are given. Payor mails a check on the first, and Payee contests that if Payor is to pay by check, the check must be enforceable by the 1st (received prior to the 1st). We're ignoring the options of changing the contract, ACH, and credit cards since this is just a thought experiment to better understand contracts. When is payment considered "made"? Does the answer differ if the contract is for goods vs services? Possibly related: – Can a landlord insist on late fee for payment mailed but not recieved – Indiana incorporation of UCC § 3-203(a)

Payment is “made” when the money (or equivalent) is in the hands of the payee For your situation, the payee is right.

Can you be sued for getting COVID-19?

A contractor that we do a lot of work for has recently told all subcontractors that if an employee of any subcontractor gets COVID and gives it to any other worker on the job site they will be sued. Is this legal? If so, under which laws? How would this work for breakthru cases in which an employee has been vaccinated and still contracts COVID?

In the absence of a contractual agreement saying otherwise, the lawsuit would probably just be subject to normal rules of tort liability. In that case, the contractor would probably lose his case unless he could prove that the one worker infected another through an act of negligence or could otherwise prove that the infected worker knew he was infected and posed a risk to others. In the basic negligence situation, the contractor would likely rely on the general duty we all have to avoid creating unreasonable risks of injury to third parties, and he would need to argue that Worker A somehow breached that duty. Coming to work knowing you're infected would almost certainly satisfy that standard, but it might be enough to simply show that Worker A was at a large gathering of unmasked people whose vaccination status was unknown. From there, he would also need to prove that breaching that duty caused him some injury, presumably by infecting Workers B through M, causing a work slowdown, causing missed deadlines, causing late fees, etc. The contractor might also pursue a claim for reckless, rather than negligent, conduct, if Worker A knew he was infected and came to work just the same. Or he might pursue an intentional tort claim if there was some reason to believe that Worker A was actually trying to get other people sick, as opposed to just ignoring the fact that such a risk existed. As I understand it, several states have also passed laws limiting liability for exposure to COVID in the workplace, so it's possible that none of these claims would be viable, no matter how strong the evidence.

If a retailer refuses to sell an item citing a state law are they required to prove the legitimacy of the law?

A convenience store clerk refused to sell me tobacco when I declined her request to scan my ID. I did allow her to inspect my picture ID which clearly showed my age to be 63 (as if she couldn't tell by my degenerative condition). She stated it was now state law that everyone gets scanned in California. I can find no such law. No store has requested my ID since. My question is: Do I have the right to demand proof of a law which I believe to be non-existent or interpreted wrong?

The law criminally penalizes anyone who provides tobacco and paraphernalia to anyone under 21, but, "proof that a defendant, or his or her employee or agent, demanded, was shown, and reasonably relied upon evidence of majority shall be defense to any action brought pursuant to this subdivision". There is no clause stating that it is also a defense if a person reasonably believes – without ID having been presented – that a customer is at least 21. So it is discretionarily allowed for a person to refuse to sell tobacco to a person who does not provide ID (there is no law requiring a clerk to take a risk of criminal prosecution). You can "demand" proof that there is some law (you could "demand" proof that there is a law against selling beer to children if you want). Such a demand is not legally enforceable, that is, if the clerk refuses your demand, there are no legal consequences. A more general statement of the slogan "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is that everyone is expected to know the law, therefore there is in the eyes of the law no need to prove to someone else that there is such a law. There is no law requiring a person to sell you tobacco, and any sale of tobacco to you depends on you finding a person who can legally sell you tobacco and is willing to do so, for some price. You can argue with them if you can show them the law; or you can speak to the manager (if there is one), to convince them that there is no law explicitly requiring presentation of ID, and the associated negligible (?) risk of prosecution if you happen to actually be a minor.

May I add additional lyrics to a copyright song without claiming any ownership?

A copyright holder has flatly refused my request to add additional lyrics to one of their songs, for use in a private congregational church setting. Does this mean it is simply illegal? I have seen several high-profile cases in the pop music world recently where artists have resolved copyright dispute by simply adding other artists as writers - sometimes as a precautionary measure before any complaint has been made! And going a bit further back, The Verve famously were only allowed to release their hit single "Bittersweet Symphony" by giving up all income to the Rolling Stones (whose song they sampled). Does this imply that I can make a derivative work so long as I relinquish any rights to it, or does the original author still have the final say - is listing them as the author merely a politeness they can reject or does it grant me some official position? I couldn't care less if they wanted to claim ownership but I don't understand the rules. A lot of the time in real life it seems artists just 'do it' and then pay some/all the proceeds to the copyright holder but it is important to me I do things correctly.

general things on copyright Copyright law is very similar globally, due to the Berne convention on copyright. Ány country's copyright law grants the copyright to an author. Copyright is the exclusive right of an author to authorize ("license") copies, performance, and derivative works . In case multiple authors jointly create a work, they own the right in their respective parts, or jointly. The copyright holder can deny making derivatives. If a derivative is made without authorization, it is copyright infringement. If the author was asked, denied the authorization and it is made anyway, it is wilful copyright infringement. Relinquishing your rights in the altered work does not make it not copyright infringement. The only way to not commit copyright infringement is to get a license. Naming the original author of a work you adapted is not just politeness, it is mandatory in all copyrights that follow the Berne convention on copyright. Licensing Fees The Verve's agreement to get the license was specifically to pay all the proceeds to the Rolling Stones, but that was an extraordinary case. License fees for recording a cover version (with the unaltered lyrics!) are usually mandatory to be available. for example in the united-states , it is mandatory to grant a mechanical license to create cover recordings for a licensing fee, for which for example the Harry Fox Agency is collecting and distributing the required payments and royalties. Those Royalties are about 9.1 cents per copy for a sub-5-minute song's recording. This license does not allow to alter lyrics. However, synchronization (tone and video) is not mandatory to be granted, and those start at a flat 4-digit and are rather open-ended. Without a sync license, you may not make video recordings of a work being performed. A public performance of a work requires a different license. A performance license is required for any public performance, and those are not regulated either, but typically not too expensive - yet alteration again is not within the scope of such a license. Granting a performance license is typically handled by Performing Rights Organisations such as ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, taking the required fees and distributing the royalties. Making an adaptation or alteration is a derivative work. Making a derivative work requires a license that is different again. Those can only be granted by the copyright holders, and if they say no... Close the folder. The price of copyright infringement Wilful copyright infringement, especially after you were told no, can be super expensive: In the US , the rightsholder can get 150 000 USD and the lawyer fees for willful infringement. The rightsholder can sue in the US if they are there. Recoverable costs plus damages are also available in the UK , capped at 60 000 GBP for costs and 500 000 GBP in damages.

By what legislative process could the United States of America be renamed?

A country retains an identity when its name is changed. There are institutions in a country that exist independently of the name of the country. What processes would these institutions accept as proper to change the name of the United States of America?

Since the name "United States of America" is found (without formal establishment or definition) in the Declaration of Independence, and it pervades the Constitution, a statute establishing a different name for the country would probably be insufficient. A constitutional amendment should suffice, however.

Do donations to only some primary candidates express favoritism?

A county-level political party committee donated to a few, but not all, upcoming primary candidate campaigns, despite the committee's bylaw that states "It shall be the policy of the committee to take no position in favor of any [party] candidate engaged in a primary election contest." The ratio of the donations was given to about 30% of all candidates in eight primary races. One was a race in the same county as the committee. One donation was given to a candidate in a state-wide campaign, who also serves in the leadership of the same county-level committee. It's unknown if they were to be able to vote to give themself the campaign donation. The state-level party chairman sent notice to the committee that by unequally contributing to primary races, they took a position in favor of those candidates and violated their own by-laws. The chairman gave three options to remedy the problem: Donate equal amounts to all the other primary candidates in those races, request a refund from the original candidates, or the committee could provide a solution that corrects the violations. The committee did not vote to endorse or support any candidates and doesn’t believe donating money to a candidate is favoritism. They said some candidates already spent the money, and they won't donate to other candidates that the committee leadership doesn't support. The committee hasn't said what a third option solution might be. However, a few days later the committee announced they were going to start ranking primary candidates by how much they adhere to all of the party platforms and interviews with committee leadership. The party rules allow the state-level organization to compel performance to remedy violations within county-level committees. The state party chairman has final discretion. Does donating money to some candidates express favor for those candidates over others in the same primary race? Would the candidate ranking idea violate the bylaw? Could the other candidates pursue legal remedies from the committee? Could party members who donated to the committee and disagree pursue legal remedies from the committee? The political party is legally considered a private business. Would the state chairman be able to successfully apply consequences to the committee if he doesn't like their solution? UPDATE: Yes, all candidates are from the same political party. It's an internal party primary. I guess I should have made that clear, but I kept saying primary election so I thought that was enough. The committee donated money to some candidates in the party and not others running against each other in the same race. Nothing like the general election where of course they'll only support their candidates.

It would first depend on what the bylaws (rules) of the county party are. Hypothetically speaking, here could be rules of a party in some county which does avow a policy (in Art. II) of not supporting any candidate engaged in a primary election contest. Donation in favor of any candidate violates that provision. Powers of a county central committee are by state law subordinate to rules and regulations promulgated and adopted by the state conventions or the state central committee. One would then turn to (hypothetical) state party rules which specify a procedure for adjudicating disputes under Art. XII. One would need to study the specific governing documents in the case under consideration to answer these questions. Given the hypothetical governing documents, Q1 is misconceived because it assumes something not in evidence. The stated (quoted) policy is not "comparative" (one candidate over another), it is literally absolute ("take no position in favor of any ... candidate engaged in a primary election contest") – any donation constitutes support. However, a more imaginative interpretation of the language of the policy could be that the intention was to "express specific support for one candidate over another " – either way, the bylaw has been violated. Q2: "Candidate ranking" enjoys no direct support from the bylaws, but is conceivably consistent with other requirements of Art. II. Nothing in those bylaws empowers the county committee to expel or deny party affiliation to a candidate on the grounds of ideological impurity. Q3-4: a candidate can, under state rules, seek redress of grievances at the state party level, as can contributors. Q5: Given the hypothetical, the state party chairman does not have such discretionary power, instead, the decision is made by the Judicial Committee or, in case of appeal, the State Central Committee. Hyper-hypothetically, a disgruntled individual could file suit in state court, seeking a better outcome, but the suit would almost certainly be dismissed unless there is evidence of a serious procedural violation in the hearing.

Which state&#39;s laws determine guidelines for voluntary termination of parental rights?

A couple has a child out of wedlock. The father pays child support for several years, but the mother and child live in a different state from the father/where the birth occurred. The father wishes to terminate his parental rights in order to no longer pay child support. Which state's laws govern the termination of rights? Is it the one the child is a resident of, or where the child was born?

Generally, in non-emergency situations, the state with jurisdiction over parenting issues related to children including relinquishment and adoption is vested in the courts of the "home state" of the child. A child's "home state" is defined by statute by a coordinated definitions set forth in parallel laws at the state (the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act in 49 states) and federal (the Parental Kidnapping Prevent Act ) level. This definition of "home state" provides a fairly precise definition of something that approximately matches your intuition regarding the state where the child resides in most cases. There is also an international treaty with a similar home state definition. The state where the child was born ceases to be relevant at the point at which that state ceases to be the child's "home state". But, once a state's courts take jurisdiction over parenting issues for a child, the barrier to divest that state of jurisdiction is higher than it would be if there was no prior litigation. So, the state establishing the child support decree would often be the "home state" in the fact pattern set forth in this question. I will refrain from discussing the substantive law of voluntary relinquishment following an acknowledgment of paternity and payment of child support at length in this post as it is beyond the scope of what was asked. Suffice it to say that this is generally disfavored and is sometimes impossible. Also, the actions that could lead to involuntary termination of parental rights (even for mere non-support) also often have parallel felony criminal sanctions associated with them.

UK domestic partner squatting

A couple have been together for a few decades. One of them sold their house 10+ years ago when they hit hard times, since recovered from. About 8 years ago the other inherited a house on their parents' death. They are now living there with the non-owner paying no rent. If the owner should die in future, could the non-owner claim some sort of squatter's rights and own the house?

No But they can make a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 if the deceased partner’s will makes inadequate provision for them or if there is no will.

Do any jurisdictions besides Texas permit a couple to register a marriage years after the fact?

A couple in Texas, otherwise unmarried, can go to the county courthouse and register their marriage on any date they choose. The date can be years earlier. Is this allowed elsewhere? What legal system is this practice likely to be inherited from? I would like to offer more information about why I am curious about formalization of informal marriages. First, as in Texas, same sex couples could obtain certification of marriages that were initiated before such marriages were legal. People could obtain the benefits of a long standing marriage, even predating Obergefell versus Hodges. Moreover, Texas law does not seem to prohibit any couple from moving to Texas, becoming residents, and formalizing their long-standing relationship, though started elsewhere. This might take only a few days or possibly a month depending on the requirements for residency. Second, I met a couple who had recently married in Britain in a Hindu (I believe) ceremony, but did not marry in a church or registry office. Thus, their marriage was not registered. I met them on the airplane when they were flying to Las Vegas with the intention of marrying there to obtain legal recognition of their marriage. They seemed to believe that others had done the same. From news sources I understand that marriage without documentation in Britain is fairly common among both Hindus and Muslims. This presents a problem, particularly to women, if they later seek a divorce since they are not recognized as married by the British courts.

The question mischaracterizes Texas law. Texas allows a common law marriage to be formally acknowledged in a document signed by the parties, for bureaucratic convenience and to end uncertainty. As clarified in the comments: this procedure isn't for couples who are "otherwise unmarried", but for those who are already married under common law (by living together as spouses, etc). And the date presumably can't actually be any date they choose, but only within the time period of their common-law marriage. In Texas, there is a common law marriage (per the link above) when you and your partner: are not already married, informally or formally, to anyone else at the time the marriage was created, AND both you and your partner were at least 18 years of age when the marriage was created; and you agreed to be married, AND afterward, lived in Texas as a married couple, and represented to others that you are married (“holding out” to others). These requirements, or some close variant of them, are typical of almost all common law marriage states. Common law marriages may be formed in the following U.S. states : Colorado: Common law marriage contracted on or after Sept. 1, 2006, is valid if, at the time the marriage was entered into, both parties are 18 years or older, and the marriage is not prohibited by other law (Colo. Stat. §14-2-109.5) Iowa: Common law marriage for purposes of the Support of Dependents Chapter (Iowa Code §252A.3) Otherwise it is not explicitly prohibited (Iowa Code §595.1A) Kansas: Common law marriage will be recognized if the parties are 18 or older and for purposes of the Divorce and Maintenance Article, proof of common law marriage is allowed as evidence of marriage of the parties (Kan. Stat. §23-2502; Kan. Stat. §23-2714) Montana: Not strictly prohibited, they are not invalidated by the Marriage Chapter (Mont. Stat. §40-1-403) New Hampshire: Common Law Marriage: "persons cohabiting and acknowledging each other as husband and wife, and generally reputed to be such, for the period of 3 years, and until the decease of one of them, shall thereafter be deemed to have been legally married." (N.H. Stat. §457:39) South Carolina: allows for marriages without a valid license (S.C. Stat. §20-1-360) Texas: Common Law Marriage in specific circumstances (Tex. Family Law §1.101; Tex. Family Law §2.401-2.402) Utah: Utah Stat. §30-1-4.5 While Texas provides a standard form for doing so, affidavits from each spouse, possibly filed in public real property records where the parties reside, would have the same effect. The use of a standardized safe harbor state approved form for doing this is a Texas-specific innovation. Common law marriage derives from English law, although it has since been abolished in England. The practice of formally documenting events and relationships that arise by operation of law with a signed instrument is a long standing one in all sorts of legal contexts. The Texas standard form Declaration would be prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it about the common law marriage of the parties, that would be hard to rebut. But, if someone had a legitimate reason to question whether they were actually married on the date stated (e.g. to overcome a claim of spousal confidential communications privilege) this could be overcome with evidence offered in an evidentiary hearing to the contrary (e.g. proof that the couple didn't meet until two years after the date recited).

Can a couple be charged for spending $120,000 deposited to their bank account in error?

A couple is being charged for spending $120,000 which was deposited to their account in error (also see this PennLive article ) This is in Pennsylvania, USA. The facts are presented as follows: One day, couple wakes up to $120,000 extra dollars due to teller error. The money was intended for a business. They are aware that this must be an error but spend the money anyway. The bank wants the money back. The couple quits talking to the bank. The couple is charged with theft and receiving stolen property. I am very confused how they can be charged with either of these things. In the case of theft, I think it is fairly plain the couple did nothing to receive the money. No act on their part caused the money to enter their account. I think most reasonable people would agree that at that point, they "have" the money, and what they do with it after that is irrelevant to whether it was stolen. If this is not the case, and the act of spending the money is the theft, then it implies that any money in anyone's account is not theirs, which I seriously doubt a jury would agree with. With regards to receiving stolen property, there are two options. My claim above is true, and the couple did not steal the money. If the property then is "stolen," the uncomfortable implication is that the bank stole the money. (Teller Error, I don't think, counts as theft). My claim above is untrue, in which case, it's hard to argue they received it at all, since they are the thieves (the reception becomes trivial). It seems to me that the prosecution is doomed if the couple decides to go to trial. What's going to give the prosecution a chance to succeed? If they are doomed, why bother filing the charges at all? Note: I am aware of statues in the case of mail where receiving mail which is not yours and failing to make a reasonable attempt to return it is theft. I am unaware of any similar banking statues. EDIT: The couple did something wrong. I am not disputing that. I simply don't see how either choice in charge by the prosecution results in a conviction.

Broadly speaking, theft offences in common law jurisdictions are defined as the dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, without proper authority (e.g. permission or legal right to do that). Appropriation means the assumption of the rights of ownership of the property, i.e. behaving as if you were now its owner, not simply or solely the taking of the property. Possible defences include absence of intent to deprive the rightful owner of the property and intent to search for the rightful owner of the property and return it to them. You say: The facts are presented as follows: One day, couple wakes up to $120,000 extra dollars due to teller error. The money was intended for a business. They are aware that this must be an error but spend the money anyway. The bank wants the money back. The couple quits talking to the bank. The couple is charged with theft and receiving stolen property. I don't know about the charge of receiving stolen property (unless that relates to how they transferred or spent the money) but on the facts presented it's certainly prima facie theft. Reportedly, by their own admissions they found money in their account that wasn't theirs, they knew it wasn't theirs and they spent it.

Can a couple place mortgages in separate names while sharing funds?

A couple is going to get married next year. They are currently engaged and share funds between each other. The soon-to-be-husband has a mortgage in his name. Can they qualify for special programs for a second mortgage/property by putting this new property under the name of the single, lower-income-earning, soon-to-be-wife? The funds would be primarily coming from husband, but he would just be transferring them to his wife and utilizing her lower-income to qualify for special programs (ie closing cost assistance, lower downpayment requirement, etc...). Is this legal? Edit: to clarify, the first property is under the name of husband, predating the marriage. The situation would be both of them moving out of the current property, and having the wife buy the second with them subsequently moving into it

A mortgage needs to be granted by an owner of the property. If the wife isn't on title, she can't use that property to secure a mortgage. A lender could, in theory, accept a mortgage from just one of two or more owners of real estate, but this is never done because foreclosure would grant only an undivided partial interest to the foreclosing lender which is a litigation mess and insufficient to meet commercial and bank regulatory standards for adequate security for a loan. But it sounds like the girlfriend would be the sole owner of record at the time of the proposed transaction. A downpayment typically is required by lending regulations to be an unqualified gift or asset of the borrower, which is certainly possible between an unmarried boyfriend and girlfriend, so it wouldn't truly be money laundering, and they aren't married at the time the loan is entered into, so it would probably pass muster. The transaction would probably survive a form over substance attack because the transaction would have economic substance, providing the girlfriend with property that would be hers without qualification if the couple broke up, and would be her separate property since it was property owned prior to marriage in states with a community property styled marital property regime. (The one possible attack on the gift would be as a "fraudulent transfer" to avoid the boyfriend's creditors, if he was insolvent when the gift was made, which the question does not suggest is a factor in this transaction.) The reason that this isn't more common is that usually the benefits of having both incomes considered in the underwriting of a mortgage in terms of the amount of funds that could be lent and the interest rates that the couple would be eligible for provides more benefit to the couple than the benefits that a single lower earning member of the couple could obtain as a sole loan applicant under special low income earning mortgage programs.

Dental/Medical Bill advice - insurance sent charges that provider did not disclose

A couple months ago I had some dental work done with dental insurance I had through my job. After talking to the doctor and being advised to receive some fillers, I talked to the front desk and they disclosed to me the price I would have to pay after the insurance covered all of the costs, it was $350. They did not show me how this was calculated, and I was not told about the total cost before insurance. I was only concerned with how much I would have to pay at the time. I also asked if this was all I would have to pay and there would be no additional charges. They ran my insurance information and told me this is all I would have to pay. That was ok with me and I proceeded to get dental work done. For the next few months, I have been weekly receiving an "explanation of charges" letter, saying that I have a "Patient Responsibility" of $1200, and specifically saying "This is not a bill." I called the insurance company, they were not much help in explaining anything, but they did tell me that charge was a difference between what I was charged and what the maximum insurance would cover. This made no sense to me, as I previously understood insurance guarantees an "Out of Pocket" maximum, not a maximum of what they would cover. If this is really the case, and if anyone has had experience with these situations, what advice would you offer in disputing these charges? Would this affect my credit rating if I wait? Is this something to take to small claims? What information should I gather in order to do this? Is there a way to make this a dispute/claim between the provider and the insurance company without my involvement? In my defense I was given either falsified or misleading information about the charges by the provider and I was charged for something I did not agree to. Would this qualify as a small claims defense, is there a better way to put this into legal terms?

Patients are typically not aware that they have agreed to pay charges, since this is covered once in a flurry of paperwork the first time you see the provider, and one typically does not read all of that stuff. The provider would be able to give you a copy of the form you signed, where it says somewhere that you are ultimately responsible for paying the bill, and that if the insurance company pulls the rug out from underneath you, as it were, you still have to pay. Assuming the dentist is "in-network", that means that the dentist has agreed to bill the insurance company first, and has agreed to accept some amount less than the total (e.g. if the dentist's bill is $1200 the allowable may be capped at $1000, and then $350 of that would be paid by you, the remainder being paid by the insurance company – if all goes well). The dentist can only make a good-faith estimate of what the insurance company will actually pay. If the insurance company fails to cover an amount that they are contractually obligated to pay, you would be responsible for the rest and you would have to sue the insurance company for their breach of contract. (Unless of course it wasn't a breach and there was some aspect of the treatment that wasn't actually covered). Insurance companies can take a long time to deal with the paperwork, so waiting is normal. (I've had charges take 18 months to process: 90 days is pretty typical). There is a point, determined by the dentist, at which they may require payment. Usually, they let you know that the insurance company is being jerks, so when you get bills from the dentist that say PAST DUE FOR 60 DAYS PAY NOW OR ELSE, then you either pay up, or they will turn the matter over to a collection agency, and that will affect your credit rating. If when all is said and done the insurance company refuses to pay some amount for a foreseeable reason (e.g. "gold fillings are categorically disallowed") and the dentist's office was irresponsible in attempting to compute your charges (they ignored that information), then you might have a slim chance of making a legal argument.

Is it legal for &quot;in-network&quot; dentist to send me a bill when insurance company denied claim?

A couple months ago I went to the dentist for a crown, he noticed my jaw clicking and he said that I would need a " occlusal adjustment " to help fix this. Based on what I was told, I was under the impression that my insurance would cover this. I then got a notice from my insurance stating that they need additional information from the dentist before they can approve this claim. My dentist's office assured me that this is part of the process and they would have to send it paperwork so they can approve. Well my insurance didn't approve it because of the following reason: Based on the diagnostic materials provided by your dentist, this service does not meet this requirement for coverage. You should not be billed for this service. The amount billed on my insurance claim shows $500, the member rate shows $319, and if this claim got approved I would have just owed $95. Today I get a bill in the mail from my dentist at $594 and the receptionist stated that my insurance did not allow any benefits for this procedure so the dentist gave me a ($150) discount so the bill is for $444. Is this legal, can he send me a bill when he's an "in-network" dentist and my insurance denied his claim? I would have never done this procedure if my insurance didn't cover it but since they made me believe it was part of the process I thought they had experience with this sort of thing before. Since my insurance says " You should not be billed for this service. ", does that mean he is not allowed to bill me as an "in-network" dentist?

It is legal for a dentist to bill you for services rendered. You have an obligation to pay the dentist (in exchange for services); the insurance company has an obligation to cover certain expenses of yours (in exchange for money); the dentist has an obligation to the insurance company to accept certain terms specified by the insurance company (in exchange for being listed as 'in-network'). Your recourse is to object to the insurance company, since they are the ones who have an obligation to you. The brute force approach would be to sue the insurance company for failing to cover something that they are (ostensibly) obligated to pay on your behalf, under the terms of your insurance contract. However, the chances are virtually non-existent that they are actually obligated to pay the dentist. You can call the insurance company in advance of the procedure and get a definite decision as to whether the service in question is covered, and if they say "Yes", then you are covered, otherwise you will know you are not, and can plan accordingly. The insurance company has some (minor) leverage over the dentist, if the dentist has breached his contract with the company. If a service provider egregiously breaks the terms of an agreement with the insurance company, the provider could be sued or at least dropped from the in-network list. This is, however, fairly theoretical. The insurance company statement "You should not be billed for this service" has no legal force, but it does weakly suggest that they blame the dentist somewhat (the alternative is to simply say "This service is not covered"). Your obligation to the dentist arises from the service provided plus the rarely-read clause in the financial agreement document that you signed at some point which says something like "We will submit claims to your insurance company, but you are ultimately responsible for any unpaid charges". It is highly unlikely that the dentist actually lied to you about the cost, especially it is unlikely that he said anything that could be construed as a promise that the insurance company would provide a particular level of coverage. For future reference, you either need to get a clear written statement from the service provider that they will accept whatever the insurance company allows you (i.e. their seat of the pants estimates are legally binding), or you need to get a clear written statement from the insurance company regarding what is and is not covered.

How do i report an Email crime in Germany?

A couple of German companies are making money off my name. Since they do not care about my requests to remove my name from their sites and Google refuses to remove them from the Google search I would like to get in touch with the German internet regulator. Does anyone know what legal recourse I have in Germany? For instance, what is the name for the German internet regulator (national level)? What other legal authorities should I complain to? Or should I sue?

Go to Polizei.de. (I was referred to this Website by Europol)

What is a store detective allowed to do?

A couple of days ago I came into contact with a store detective after a quite expensive shopping trip. The shoplifting gate-thingy went off (there's more to it but no need to drag it out) and when I was already outside, the store detective approached me, eventually even grabbed me and tried to rip my shopping bag off my shoulder. I had to call for help and the guy only let go when he saw other people approaching to help me. He was later joined by a second "detective" and they both refused to let me leave (cornered me in front of a different store) - they didn't even want to let me use the toilet. Eventually the police showed up, checked my bag (the second "detective" looked at the receipt to check) and proved that I indeed hadn't stolen anything, as I'd said at least 10 times. I can't find any information about Austria, so I hope that someone here'll be able to help me: What is a store detective legally allowed to do? Do I have to answer any questions (e.g. if I bought anything at that store)? Do I have to show them a receipt? Are they allowed to check my backpack/shopping bag/... without my permission? Are they allowed to grab someone without consent? Are they allowed to take away a bag forcefully? Are they allowed to follow me outside the shop? When the police show up, does any of that change or are only they allowed to check my bag,...? So basically: What can I do now? I'm not physically hurt but I'm completely over the place since then - not sleeping well, getting kind of shaky when I think about this (and incredibly angry)?

Here is what the Austrian law says in this case (Google translation): Bag control in the supermarket: There is no obligation to have your bag checked by supermarket staff or security guards. If there is a reasonable suspicion, the supermarket staff can ask a suspect to wait for the police to arrive. The police can then check the bag. In this Austrian newspaper article (in German) they say about this topic If a person is injured during the arrest because of a low value item or if an expensive item is damaged, the detective might be liable for it. As long as they don't start searching your bags, they are allowed to hold on to you till police arrives. I would complain to the shop owner about the detectives and their behavior via mail, this is probably the most efficient thing what one can do.

Is it lawful for a company to refuse a refund of a cancelled subscription service?

A couple of days ago, I was billed for my yearly Playstation Plus subscription service. I wasn't notified ahead of time that it was due to renewal and so I could no cancel. I cancelled immediately afterwards and requested a refund. I was denied because their T&Cs say there is no cooling off period for renewals. Is this legal on their behalf? I will be pursuing it but it would be good to know what exactly my rights as a consumer are.

Their auto-renewal of subscriptions and no refund policy is legal; it's clearly outlined in the contract you enter into by using the service. The TOS is at https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/legal/terms-of-service/ and outlines the policy. (the ALL CAPS are not mine; that's verbatim from the TOS) : If you no longer wish to receive your subscription, you must cancel your subscription by using Account management or contacting customer service at www.playstation.com/support or the address located at the end of this agreement. Cancellation will take effect at the beginning of the next subscription term. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE STATED IN THIS AGREEMENT, UPON CANCELLATION OF YOUR SUBSCRIPTION OR TERMINATION OF THE MASTER ACCOUNT OR SUB ACCOUNT, YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REFUND OR CREDIT FOR ANY SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR WHICH YOU HAVE PAID. When you subscribe the first time, or use a free trial offer, you click through and accept the TOS. Clicking through is a legal contract. See Are terms of service legal contracts? It's their legal right to include those terms in a TOS, and their right to require you to accept the TOS; it's your right to refuse to accept the terms, but that also means you can't pay for and use their service. That said, in AU you may have different rights as a consumer, including a mandatory "cooling off" period. See http://www.australia.gov.au/information-and-services/business-and-industry/consumer-rights Someone with more experience in AU law can weigh in.

Can I sue the U.S. Post Office for delivering Certified Mail that was open?

A couple of days ago, I went to my local post office and mailed a large envelope with paperwork inside of it and I had addressed it to me and my home address. The reason I did this was to do a 'poor man's patent' in which I could prove at a later date that I came up with an inventive idea/invention before a certain date. When I was at the post office I had removed the plastic film from the envelopment to expose the sticky strip and then I closed the envelope and then firmly pushed the flap of the envelope against the body of the envelope and I did this several times to make sure that it was sealed. I then took the envelope to the counter and the post office representative put the postage stamp on it and also put a Certified Mail label on the envelope. Well, when I removed the envelope from my mail box today, the flap of the envelope was open and there was no Certified Mail label on the envelope. This makes me believe that my envelope was tampered with. The odd thing about it is that when I pushed the open flap back down onto the envelope, waited a minute, and then pulled up on the flap, it was stuck to the envelope and would not budge. Can I sue the U.S. Post Office for delivering this envelope opened and without a Certified Mail label?

No. The government enjoys sovereign immunity, meaning that it cannot be sued unless it consents to being sued. The Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346) generally permits negligence actions against federal agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service. But 28 U.S.C. § 2680 carves out an exception for "any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." The Supreme Court looked at that exception in 2006 and concluded that it covers cases where "mail either fails to arrive at all or arrives late, in damaged condition , or at the wrong address." Dolan v. Postal Service , 546 U.S. 481 (2006) . Your situation seems to fall pretty squarely in that description. Upon request, a court would dismiss it almost immediately.

Is it legal to create a carbon copy of an application?

A couple of days ago, an acquaintance of mine asked for help with an application for his non-profit company. This application was already done previously by people who the client hired previously. He mistakenly hasn't put down a plan to pay them. So they decided to monetize it their own way. They asked him to pay for a set monthly fee as well as some other costs that honestly seem ridiculous to me. I looked at his requierements and set a price for a bunch of user stories which I will run by him later this week to see if he agrees. After the initial deployement I plan on maintaining the application for an hourly fee. So far, he seemed to be content with both the price I proposed the first time we talked about the application and the maintaining fee. The problem is, that he sent me screenshots, basically detailing every single aspect and functionality of the application that was previously created for him. Therefore I have a question. Is it legal for me to basically create a 1 for 1 carbon copy of something that other people have already created and "sell" it for a lower price? P.s. I am also sceptical of the whole debacle that he had with his previous "employees". That's why I am determined to put everything in writing as to prevent any misunderstandings from happening.

The code and the “look” of the user interface is protected by copyright - you can’t duplicate either. You can create your own app with the same functionality.

My employer has declined my annual leave request a week before my holiday - is this legal?

A couple of months ago I requested 5 days annual leave, and gave my employer the dates. The employer did not acknowledge the request, but sent an automated e-mail a week before the leave was due to start, telling me that the request had been declined. It’s not the first time it has happened, and my colleagues say that this is the normal practice in this workplace. Is it a requirement for the employer to give reasonable notice when declining leave, and if so, what is the minimum period it must give? I have now requested two weeks leave in July (and I can be flexible on the dates), plus the week that was declined in May, and again it has failed to acknowledge the request, or give any indication when I can expect a response. If the company continues this pattern of behaviour I will clearly be forced into taking my annual leave entitlement at a time of the company’s choosing, which has previously not been in whole weeks, but rather random days dictated by the company.

It is legal for a U.K. employer to refuse leave and they must do so the same period before the leave as the amount of the leave. A week for your 5 days leave complies. They must, however, allow you to take your annual leave within the year. They can dictate when . See https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights/booking-time-off-

Car Insurance insisting I pay for the remainder of the year after a no fault crash

A couple of months ago I was in a no fault accident that wrote my car off, I contacted my insurance company and told them about the accident. I was assured that as long as it wasn't my fault my no claims or premium wouldn't be affected. I was made to feel like claiming for the damage was the right thing to do. In the end the car was written off as it was deemed not worth repairing and I was awarded a £200 payout. When I then attempted to cancel the insurance I was told I couldn't yet as the claim had not been closed by the underwriter. I left it for a month and continued to pay my premium. Today I was in touch with them again to close the policy and was told I would need to pay a full £600 as I have been paying monthly and would need to pay for the remainder of the year. Is this legal? (At no point during the process was I told that this would be the case, the whole time I was made to feel like I was doing the right thing and I now very much feel like I have been conned into giving them more money. I would have been far better off to scrap the car myself, get scrap value and have just canceled the insurance!)

You have to pay the premium You are not buying insurance by the month - you are buying coverage for a year for which you making monthly payments. At law, your insurer has to pay out for a single claim that happens during that period - most insurance policies contain a reset clause that reinstates the cover after a claim but this only applies if the asset still exists. Insurance law started with insurance of wooden ships on intercontinental voyages where losses were usually total and this ‘accident of history’ informs modern insurance where losses are usually not total. Similarly, being able to cancel the insurance if you dispose of the asset is a creature of the contract and usual practice rather than a legal requirement. As for “mak[ing] it clear to me” - they did. It’s in the policy which you legally read and understood even if you didn’t actually read it.

How can consent-banner as a service be GDPR compliant?

A couple of months ago I've read that hosting google fonts on your own server is a better but maybe slower solution as loading content from google servers is already something that the users must be informed about due to submitting your IP to google. Now I am realizing that basically the same thing is true for consent services that host the entire experience on their servers and give users only the service, am I right? They all claim they are safe to use, but I fail to understand how so. I was testing a consent service that requires me to basically load their cloud hosted javascript code: <script type="text/javascript" charset="UTF-8" src="https://cdn.cookie-consent-provider.com/<SOME-ID>.js"></script> Now I can't get my head around whether this is already some sort of non-compliant GDPR behaviour because even if this provider would do everything to protect the data and be compliant, etc, I still would have to establish a connection to their servers first, in order to be able to inform the users because in some cases self-hosting this service is not possible due to a paywall or not-available at all. So basically loading my website script loads cookie consent from remote server cookie consent is displayed would be invalid because the user could not decide, nor decline step 2? He or she would send their IP to the remote address without consent. The fun part is: What if the consent banner has no way of declining step 2.? I mean, this is weird because you would decline consent to access the consent servers. §6 https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ states that consent is required and if this is true, then no consent service unless self-hosting would actually be compliant? Where am I wrong?

The critical part is the nature of the relationship between you, the website provider, and the provider of the material you embed. If the embed-provider acts as your data processor , then things are generally fine. The GDPR does not really distinguish between personal data processing activities that you perform yourself versus activities that you've outsourced to third parties. However, you would remain responsible for compliance. This also means that per Art 28 GDPR, you will need a contract with that embed-provider (sometimes called a “Data Processing Agreement”, DPA). This contract stipulates that the processor will only use the personal data as instructed by you, but not for their own purposes. With the Google Fonts case, it must be highlighted that Google does not act as a processor for this service. Google does not offer a DPA that covers the Fonts CDN. While Google promises that it doesn't use the personal data collected in this context in any nefarious way, there are zero contractual guarantees for website providers. So we have to consider the scenario when the embed-provider is an independent data controller . We as the website provider have no control over what the embed-provider does with the collected data, our control only extends to whether or not we cause the website to disclose data to that third party. But this is still processing as personal data (see also the CJEU Fashion ID case), and we need a legal basis for this data sharing. In the Google Fonts case, the court in Munich found that there was no legal basis for using Google's CDN. There was no consent, no contractual necessity, and no necessity for a legitimate interest. After all, these fonts could all be self-hosted. (Technical remark: and given how modern browsers enforce cache isolation and provide HTTP/2, serving fonts from your main domain is probably faster anyway). Consent management services will typically act as your data processor. You don't need a legal basis for “sharing” data with them, because the processing remains under your control. As far as the GDPR is concerned, loading a script from your processor's servers is equivalent to loading a script from your own servers (which you're probably hosting via a another data processor anyway). Sometimes, the necessary data processing agreement is already part of the standard terms of service, sometimes it's a separate document that has to be signed. Figuring this out is your responsibility as the data controller, before deploying the service. Art 6 GDPR doesn't say that you always need consent. It says that you need a legal basis, for which paragraph 1 enumerates six choices. For a lot of use cases, a “legitimate interest” will be appropriate, though it requires a balancing test. Sometimes, other laws mandate that you use a particular legal basis. For example, the ePrivacy Directive says that you must get GDPR-consent when accessing or storing information on the user's device (such as cookies), unless that access/storage is strictly necessary to provide a service explicitly requested by the user.

I got hit twice by different drivers

A couple of months ago my car got hit while parked, causing a small dent. I got the other person's insurance information but didn't file the claim until last week. The other person's insurance accepted full liability, but I haven't fixed the small dent. Today a lady hit me on the same side and caused further damage. What happens now?

It is a principle of equity (of which damages are a part) that you are not entitled to be enriched. Let's say that the first collision did damage costing $500 to repair. If after the second collision the cost of the repair is now $700, the first driver is liable for $500 and the second for $200. That said, let your insurer sort it out - that's what you pay your premiums for.

Was my house legally searched?

A couple of months ago, I overdosed on an illegal drug and called an ambulance. I was honest and told them what I took. Two cops came with them and while I was in the ambulance and also in the ER 20 minutes later, the cops and the paramedics entered my house, presumably to investigate it for drugs, but they did not have an official search warrant, and they didn't ask for permission. The paramedics took some of my legal supplements with them but never gave them back. Were they allowed to do this?

I overdosed on an illegal drug and called an ambulance. I was honest and told them what I took . [emphasis added] You stated that you had possession, and had recently used a notable amount, of an illegal substance. That is reasonable cause (or "probable cause" in some jurisdictions) for a search, regardless of a warrant, and they do not need permission. For example, as FindLaw.com explains, in the USA. [p]olice may use firsthand information, or tips from an informant to justify the need to search your property. If an informant's information is used, police must prove that the information is reliable under the circumstances.

No law against false imprisonment in Massachusetts?

A couple of weeks ago a cab driver refused to let me out of his cab. In the aftermath of that incident, I went to look up the laws in Massachusetts on false imprisonment and could not find any law against it. I know that in some states false imprisonment is a felony, but I could not find any Massachusetts statute making it a crime. Am I missing something or is false imprisonment not a crime in Massachusetts?

As in some other jurisdictions, what most people think of as "false imprisonment" is categorized as kidnapping in Massachusetts, codified at Chapter 265, Section 26 : Whoever, without lawful authority, forcibly or secretly confines or imprisons another person within this commonwealth against his will, or forcibly carries or sends such person out of this commonwealth, or forcibly seizes and confines or inveigles or kidnaps another person, with intent either to cause him to be secretly confined or imprisoned in this commonwealth against his will, or to cause him to be sent out of this commonwealth against his will or in any way held to service against his will, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years. Whoever commits any offence described in this section with the intent to extort money or other valuable thing thereby shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years. Separate from the criminal offense, Massachusetts courts also recognize civil actions for false imprisonment.

Missed flight, can we take the airline to court to claim money to rebook remaining flights?

A couple of weeks ago me and my partner went on holiday. We had booked with Thai Airways and had a multi-part ticket. London -> Bangkok, Bangkok -> Tokyo, Osaka -> London (via Bangkok) On the day of the Bangkok to Tokyo flight (Nov 17th), I had food poisoning, we got to the airport, but I was constantly throwing up and severely dehydrated, so we saw the airport doctor, they ruled me not fit to fly and sent me to the hospital in an ambulance, my partner stayed with me the entire time. Whilst at the airport doctor's, one of the nurses took our flight information and went up to inform Thai that we wouldn't be able to make the trip (this was about 4 hrs before the flight was due), unfortunately there wasn't anybody manning the check-in desk so they weren't able to notify them, however they said they would return later to let them know. I sent an e-mail to Thai the following morning (Nov 18th) when I was no longer incapacitated checking whether the remaining flights were still valid. The morning after that (Nov 19th), I received a call from Thai at 9am at the hospital saying that unless we rebooked our tickets (with a new Bangkok to Tokyo flight) at a cost of £1000 each (the original ticket cost us ~£740 each) by 11am, all our remaining flights would be cancelled. We believe the airport doctor notified Thai (in Thai's T&C it states if they are informed prior to the flight they won't cancel the remaining flights), though we don't have any physical evidence. We could have booked a flight to Tokyo by ourselves for aprox £300 each on the day. Would there be any room for us to take Thai Airways to court to reclaim the £2000 we had to pay?

No You missed the flight. Thai is not responsible for your acts and omissions. As for the check in desk, they are often unmanned, however, Thai have an email address and a telephone number that is manned 24/7. I am surprised that you couldn’t find any Thai airlines staff in all of Bangkok airport given that it is their home base. This is precisely what travel insurance is for. Assuming that the fee was correctly charged under the contract terms in the relevant circumstances you have no right to have it waived. Thai might waive it gratuitously if you ask but they don’t have to.

My crypto exchange closed my account for no reason, how can I defend myself against it?

A couple of years ago, I opened an account in Bitpanda , deeming it a serious and professional crypto exchange. In the last year I haven't carried out any operations, a few days ago I decided to go back to do some trading. I had to supplement my account with new personal info, selfies and photos of my passport. All approved, so I moved to the platform, click on deposit, where I noticed that the maximum deposit I could make was 0 euros. Then I tried to make a withdrawal, but that too was disabled. So I contacted the support and this is what they told me: After a further check by our security department, we have to permanently close your account for security reasons. Also, it is not possible to create a new account or reactivate an existing one. Please note that we cannot provide any further information on this decision and will not deal with any complaints about it. The bottom line is that they actually stole my money, for no reason, as I have never done any weird transactions. Even if it's little money, it seems to me an injustice. Is there anything I can do about this action? UPDATE 2 JAN 2023 On December 29th, I opened a dispute and after 4 days with no response, I look at my ticket directly on the website, so what a surprise when I saw that my dispute was closed without any reason.

Think through what really happened. You are using terms like fraud, while they may be thinking they're doing fraud protection, or otherwise following laws and regulations. You wrote that you didn't use it for a long time, could the credentials have been compromised? It sounds highly implausible that a platform would defraud a single user. Either there are many more people with similar stories, or your claim is a bit suspect. Think about what your goal is. Reactivating the account, or getting the balance back? Is the balance big enough to spend time and money? Check with which legal entity you have a contract. AFAIK BitPanda is Austrian, so they cannot refuse a GDPR information request on what they have about you all that easily. Consider communication in writing, by registered mail.

What would be involved in breaking or renegotiating NAFTA?

A couple weeks ago, a Republican candidate for president suggested that if elected, he'd renegotiate NAFTA or break it . What would be involved in either of those processes? Or specifically: Repeal/Withdrawal Would simply floating a "repeal NAFTA" bill through the legislature and getting it signed by the President be sufficient to withdraw from NAFTA? (Can't imagine otherwise, national sovereignty and all that.) Violation What are the penalties for members to the treaty if they violate its provisions? Renegotiation Are there any provisions in the treaty for amendments, or would "renegotiation" basically be like passing another treaty?

Focusing on the legal question rather than the political. Sovereign power does not mean unfettered power; just ask King John or King George III. The government of the United States exists under the law of the United States. The law of the United States has recognised that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is part of US customary law. Basically, that means that a treaty that the US has ratified is binding on the US and US courts will generally support this. From the article you cite, the treaty could be ended in accordance with its terms: the NAFTA can be ended with 6 months notice – this is not breaking the treaty, it is complying with it. Note, however, that some doubt exists about who has the power to do so. If the treaty has not been properly terminated then it hasn't been terminated at all. If the US were to breach the terms of the treaty then an aggrieved party with standing (which may include foreign governments or companies) could sue the US either in their local courts or US courts. They would probably succeed. As for renegotiation, if all the parties are willing anything can be renegotiated.

Removing deceased spouse from mortgage - TX | USA

A couple years ago, the lender on my mortgage approached me about refinancing the house to lower my payment, but my wife passed away several years ago. Being in our early 30s, and poor as could be, a will wasn't something either of us had really worried about, and she passed away five months after we closed on the house. Due to the house being in mine AND my wife's name, the lender required at least two people who were unrelated to us who knew both my wife and I for at least 10 years who would go before a notary and support my "right of heirship" request. This is practically impossible because we were together for almost 10 years when she passed away. After she passed away, I adopted my stepchild and my wife and I had one child together. Some sources indicate that since we bought the house together while married, when she passed it 100% became solely mine through "right of survivorship". However other sources I've found appear to indicate that ownership of our stuff is now split equally between me and the kids. I am looking to put the house on the market and move back home to be closer to family within the next year, and would like to minimize the number of hoops I have to jump through to get out from the under house, which is why I'm looking for clarification on what my options are. Do I have 100% control? Or do I need to find some people to say they knew both me and wife for over a decade?

It primarily depends on the title that you have to the house: are you "joint tenants with right of survivorship". This could have happened when you bought the house; it also could have been done after the fact in various ways. In that case, the house is outside of your wife's estate (which, under the circumstances, is divided between children and you). The lender might be confused about the status of the property, but they might be right, so the question is, what is your legal "interest" in the house, that is, does the title document say "tenants in common"? Assuming that the property is not recorded as JTWROS, then there are two matters to attend to. First, the lender may need to be satisfied, somehow, that they aren't taking a risk by refinancing when you aren't really the full owner. The second is clarifying actual ownership. Estates Code 201.0002-.003 govern intestate succession with a surviving spouse, where the dividing question is whether it is a community estate or not, which then implies shares for children. In that case, the children are part-owners, so you need their consent to e.g. sell the house (that is, this is a complication that needs to be fixed). Basically, you have to get a lawyer, and straighten this out.

Is the California court ruling that coffee can increase cancer risk justified?

A court in California ruled against companies that may have to put a warning that tells customers there is a possible cancer risk linked to coffee by saying the companies "failed to meet their burden of proof on their Alternative Significant Risk Level affirmative defense". Is this ruling justified? This is somewhat related to this answer since it addresses the health risk of acrylamide which is the court's argument for why coffee should have the cancer risk warning. Given the convincing data in the answer I linked, I'm finding it hard to see how the court justified this ruling.

From a legal perspective, I think the ruling is reductio ad absurdum correct. California voters passed Proposition 65. Consequently, CA Health and Safety Code 25249.6 says "No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual, except as provided in Section 25249.10 ". Section 25249.8 mandates a list, and defines "known to the state" A chemical is known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity within the meaning of this chapter if in the opinion of the state’s qualified experts it has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, or if a body considered to be authoritative by such experts has formally identified it as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity, or if an agency of the state or federal government has formally required it to be labeled or identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. Acrylamide is so listed , and has been for 18 years, reason code listed as "AB-IARC, AB-US EPA". The law does not say that "the benefits may outweigh the risks", nor does the law say anything about usual doses. There is an "escape clause", if one (the defendant) can prove that there is no effect (25249.8(b)): An exposure for which the person responsible can show that the exposure poses no significant risk assuming lifetime exposure at the level in question for substances known to the state to cause cancer, and that the exposure will have no observable effect assuming exposure at one thousand (1000) times the level in question for substances known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity, based on evidence and standards of comparable scientific validity to the evidence and standards which form the scientific basis for the listing of such chemical pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 25249.8. In any action brought to enforce Section 25249.6, the burden of showing that an exposure meets the criteria of this subdivision shall be on the defendant. The answer on Skeptics does not address the EPA finding (and the science underlying it). At this point we can only conjecture about the defense's scientific argument (the ruling is still in the works, pending feedback from parties), but the judge said "While plaintiff offered evidence that consumption of coffee increases the risk of harm to the fetus, to infants, to children and to adults, defendants' medical and epidemiology experts testified that they had no opinion on causation" and that the coffee makers hadn't presented the proper grounds at trial to prevail. Insofar as human subjects testing of suspected carcinogens is illegal, any argument that "but this only shows that it causes cancer in rats" is legally empty: rats are a suitable proxy for humans. This is a state report addressing a potential carcinogen, 4-Methylimidazole. The report notes that to have a No Significant Risk Level finding, the substance must have less than a "daily intake level posing a 10^-5 lifetime risk of cancer". A further requirement is that "risk analysis shall be based on the most sensitive study deemed to be of sufficient quality" (whatever that is). This study mentions a previous study which was rejected because "these studies do not meet the criteria specified in Section 25703(a) because the experiments were not designed to adequately control for and examine the potential carcinogenicity of 4-MEI". Basically, Spiegelhalter's argument is too meta, and doesn't constitute a proof that acrylamide poses no risk of cancer. If the defendants commissioned an independent scientific study to overcome earlier carcinogen findings, perhaps the study failed on technical grounds. The bar that has to be cleared is very high. The EPA regulation says that the maximum contaminant level goal for acrylamide is zero. That is the carcinogen-science basis for specific allowable levels in water supplies.

Why is a divisional court called a divisional court?

A court sitting with more than one judge is a divisional court. I am having difficulty seeing the relevance of the term to its definition.

High Court cases are usually heard by a single judge, but in some instances (see s 66(1) below) more than one judge is required. When this happens, it's called a divisional court. See Section 66 Senior Courts Act 1981, which states that: Divisional courts of High Court. (1) Divisional courts may be held for the transaction of any business in the High Court which is, by or by virtue of rules of court or any other statutory provision, required to be heard by a divisional court. (2) Any number of divisional courts may sit at the same time. (3) A divisional court shall be constituted of not less than two judges. (4) Every judge of the High Court shall be qualified to sit in any divisional court. (5) The judge who is, according to the order of precedence under this Act, the senior of the judges constituting a divisional court shall be the president of the court. The term "Divisional" stems from the way the Senior Courts (apart from the Crown Court) are structured - i.e. divided - to deal with different areas of law. The High Court is divided in to three divisions: King’s Bench Division Family Division Chancery Division And the Court of Appeal has two Divisions: Criminal and Civil

Whose misconduct? Only the prosecutor&#39;s, or the prosecutor and the cop?

A court tells the prosecutor and the police not to tell the jury that the defendant has a prior arrest. Then the prosecutor asks the witness "Officer, how did you find out where the defendant lived, so that you could go there and arrest him?". The officer has of course been ordered to answer the questions and tell the truth, and so replies: "I found out from the record of a prior arrest." So there's prosecutorial misconduct. But is it misconduct on the part of the witness? Should the witness have declined to answer? And if so what would the witness say as a reason for refusing to answer?

The underlying facts will bear more on who is at fault for this breach of the judge's order. For instance, if the cop had told the prosecutor that he had gotten the address from an informant, but then changed his testimony on the stand, then it really isn't prosecutorial misconduct. If the prosecutor knew what answer was forthcoming, then it may be some form of misconduct and how serious depends on a number of factors like intent and history of the prosecutor. But the more important question is what remedy are you seeking? The most likely outcome no matter what is behind the question and answer is for the judge to instruct the jury to disregard the answer and to not use the information in weighing the evidence. If this is more prejudicial to the defendant or is part of a larger pattern of problems, then the judge may issue a special jury instruction or declare a mistrial. None of these remedies rest on who was at fault, but rather on the amount of prejudice. If, on the other hand, you want to file a bar complaint against the prosecutor, it will all come down to who said what to whom and when. If you want the judge to hold the cop in contempt (the cop can't be disbarred, unless the cop also happens to be an attorney), then the same factual inquiry would like be necessary but it would be unlikely for a judge to consider digging into the matter at all and it is entirely within her discretion as judge. I believe the direct answer to your question is "it could be one, neither, or both, but it probably doesn't matter." Part of the question asks "Should the witness have declined to answer"? If the witness was aware of the court's ruling on the motion to exclude, then the witness should not have answered and could have asked for a clarification from the judge (outside the presence of the jury) whether the witness can answer the question. The witness could have turned to the judge and said "Your honor, I am not sure how to answer that question within in the confines of your previous rulings." The judge would like excuse the jury and the lawyers and judges can confer.

What is the &quot;date of service&quot; of a UK fixed penalty notice?

A cousin just asked my thoughts on a letter he received about an alleged speeding offence. The letter was the standard UK one that is sent out after a speed camera detection, and is fairly simple, so his actual query wasn't a problem. However he asked me the deadline and I had to say that couldn't work it out. The letter states in bold that "YOU HAVE 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS NOTICE" to take various actions. However it nowhere states what the "date of service" actually is. I know that the date printed on a letter, date of actual handing of the letter to a postal service, date of actual service of the letter, date of effective service, and date of deemed service, are all different dates. But this letter didn't say which was meant by "date of service" nor how tell when that date was. In effect my cousin was sent a letter which stated a response was legally required by some date that it neither provided, nor provided the information to calculate. Of course a prudent respondent would reply within 28 days of the date on the letter, but legally the deadline would seem to be some unspecified number of days (or working days) beyond that, and the legal deadline is not provided. For example there is no stamp or indication when it was handed to a postal service. So we don't know the start date of the notice period, only that it was at minimum on, or some number of days after, the date that the letter was printed. Even if we did know the start date of the notice period, the end date still seems indeterminate/unspecified/ambiguous, since we don't know if the letter is telling us to use actual/effective/deemed service workings from that date, nor how to calculate it. Which method of calculating date is actually correct? What method is used in practice to determine if a response was within time? Bonus points, in UK law, would a notice that says "you must reply by the end of some period of time, that isn't actually specified or legally clear,or is indeterminate", be enforceable as a stipulated time limit? Or would it be deemed defective?

The fixed penalty notice is a notice under s172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (7) A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rules, if the alleged offence took place in England and Wales, or by post otherwise; Let's assume england-and-wales . For service by post the relevant rule is 4.11 . (2) Unless something different is shown, a document served on a person by any other method is served— (b) in the case of a document sent by first class post or by the equivalent of first class post, on the second business day after the day on which it was posted or despatched; The date it was posted or dispatched will be indicated by the postmark on the envelope, "‘business day’ means any day except Saturday, Sunday, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday or a bank holiday" ( 2.2 ), and second means not the next one but the one after that. For scotland or northern-ireland you would need to determine their laws for service by post. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Your cousin was provided with all the information needed to determine the date of service because they are legally required to know the law. I can't believe neither of you had this right at your fingertips 😂. Note the "unless something different is shown". If your cousin was in the Antarctic for the summer and didn't collect their mail until they returned, that would be "something different" and service would be when they collected the mail.

Etsy Production During Work Hours

A coworker in the same building as me uses downtime to knit at his desk. Apparently he will sell these knittings on Etsy for a good deal of money. (>$8k over the course of a year) I obviously don't care, but I am certain that he is also getting paid by the company while he works on his for-profit knitting. All judgement aside, what's the worst or most likely possible punishment he could be subjected to as a result of this activity? Location Northeast US.

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing illegal about this. It might be against company policy. The company could fire a person who did another job during work hours, or discipline such a person in some other way. However, if conducted during "downtime" when a person must be ready and available but has not actual duties, and if there is no interference with the person's actual work, the company might well take no action.

Can versioning of legal documents from many different countries hope to work by just using the name of the document?

A coworker is suggesting to have laws versioned in a system we're building by using the name of the document and the date of change, under the supposition that names of documents will remain the same between versions. This system needs to handle laws from lots of countries, as well as international regulations from organizations like the EU etc. It is my experience that laws do not keep the same name in all versions for all particular lands, so to implement this would require extra administrative work. I am wondering if anyone can say how prevalent keeping the same name between versions of law is. Or cast light on versioning problems regarding laws from multiple countries.

Names of documents get changed. I'll give some examples of important German laws, other countries may differ. ortographie changes: "Civilprozeßordnung" 1870, today known as "Zivilprozessordnung" the name of the state changes: "Strafgesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich" 1871, than known as "Reichstrafgesetzbuch", today "Strafgesetzbuch" there is a widely used short form: "Gesetz über den Aufenthalt, die Erwerbstätigkeit und die Integration von Ausländern im Bundesgebiet" (2004), known as "Aufenthaltsgesetz" (the name used when it was published: "Gesetz über den Aufenthalt, die Erwerbstätigkeit und die Integration von Ausländern im Bundesgebiet(Aufenthaltsgesetz – AufenthG)", BGBl. 2004 I, 1950) In addition the question of the correct name (and content) of a law can be complicated/disputed. One example of the German lawyer Thomas Fuchs (kind of fanatic researcher on the real texts of law): The " Gewerbeordnung ". This law was published 1869 as "Gewerbeordnung für den Nordddeutschen Bund" and renamed 1883 as "Gerwerbeordnung für [das Deutsche Reich]" (with brackets!). Today everyone (including the parliament making amendments) just calls it "Gewerbeordnung". Things to add: Different laws can have the same name. In the German states this happens often (sometimes the name of the state is in the title, sometimes not). Also Germany and Austria. Different laws of the same state have the same name. Laws amending other laws often have no creative name, but are called "Gesetz zur Änderung ..." (law to alter ...). These names repeat, so normally you only refer to such laws by date "Gesetz vom ..." (law of ...). Laws belong to more than one state. E.g. the Allgemeines Deutsches Handelsgesetzbuch of 1861 were law in the member states of the Deutscher Bund. It continued to exist when the Deutscher Bund dissolved 1866. In the Deutsches Reich (Germany) it were replaced by the Handelsgesetzbuch (HGB) in 1900. When Germany annexed Austria 1938 it were replaced there too. The (than) Austrian HGB were heavily altered and renamed to Unternehmensgesetzbuch in 2007. In Liechtenstein the ADHGB is still in force. At all times the law was amended, so things get complicated.

Is it legal to sell cracked gaming accounts?

A coworker recently said they have a small side business in which they were selling cracked gaming accounts. Is this legal? It sounds very illegal, but I haven’t found anything definitive on Reddit or forums. It clearly goes against the terms of service....

Is it legal to sell cracked gaming accounts? Usually not. Your mention that " [i]t clearly goes against the terms of service " purportedly refers to a prohibition to deliver credentials to access the game. It is otherwise impossible to address specific ramifications without a detailed knowledge of the terms of service. As for your follow up comment , the agreement primarily is between the company and the licensee. However, the licensee's breach of contract (here, the unauthorized distribution of credentials) does not void the company's rights on its product with respect to everyone else. At the very least, the company would have a viable claim of unjust enrichment wherever a non-party to that initial contract obtains the product without making the corresponding payment to the company . Furthermore, proving that the non-party knew or should have known the terms of service would establish the non-party's mens rea , and/or his breach of [an independent] contract. This independent contract is formed when the new user installed and/or accessed the product using the rogue credentials. Formation of contract occurs during the common practice that the terms of service are presented to the user when installing the product or doing the account settings, and that user accepts those terms in order to proceed with the setup.

Are there restrictions on what can and cannot be called &quot;Stainless Steel&quot; for marketing purposes?

A coworker was recently complaining to me that there are restrictions on types of steel American companies can call "Stainless Steel" when marketing products (for example, outdoor grills) and that Chinese companies are exempt from these restrictions. Are there any specific regulations regarding stainless steel in product marketing and how might a company be exempt from these restrictions?

Yes Stainless steel is a classification of steel containing at least 10.5% chromium by mass, you cannot legally market something as stainless steel if it is, for example, mild steel, plastic or wood. However, within that classification there are an enormous number of different grades, each suitable for different applications. For example, 304 stainless is suitable for building products but will rapidly corrode if used near the sea: coastal areas need 316 stainless. Your friend may be complaining that Chinese manufacturers use a grade of stainless in applications where American companies and consumers would expect a different type. This may also be illegal if the actual type used were not specified. Notwithstanding, the goods themselves may be illegal as not "fit for purpose".

In USA, is getting credit card cash back this way legal?

A credit card company offers 5% cashback in rotating categories every quarter. For example, from April to June, you get 5 dollars back for every 100 dollars you spend in a particular category, say home improvement stores. On the other hand, I have also noticed that for returned products in this category, you only lose 1% of the cashback. Image a person buys a product that worths $1000 from a store (and therefore earns $50 cashback) and immediately returns the unopened product (and therefore loses $10 cashback). Then he can basically get $40 for free. Of course, the credit company sets a limit on the cash back every quarter and thus no one can get unlimited money this way. My question is, is the practice described in the paragraph legal, or is it considered fraud?

Of course, the credit company sets a limit on the cash back every quarter and thus no one can get unlimited money this way. That's why it's "legal". But that's not the correct term to use for what's going on. Yes, it's legal under general banking and finance regulations for banks to make cashback offers like that, even if it appears they lose money. A bank isn't going to run a cashback program that is illegal; they'd lose their banking license. What's the sense of that? They're not going to run a cashback program that looses them too much money, either. A better way to think of the cashback system and the way to game the system of 4% by returning purchases it is to realize that it allowed under the Terms of Service of the credit card and issuing bank. They get people to sign up for cards and use them by enticing them with money. And the bank has set a limit to the total cashback each quarter; the bank is smart enough to make terms that have no loopholes, yet still make them money. And, if you read the Terms, I'm sure there is a clause that says the bank can change the terms at any time, and you agree to those terms by default or by simply using the card. The bank can decide at any time to stop the program for certain customers if they abuse it, i.e. try to max out the cashback each quarter. So the idea of this being illegal or fraud isn't the case here; the idea is that it is legal as the bank sets their cashback rules under federal and state regulations, and can change them, when needed.

No written contract. Do I have to pay undisclosed early termination fee?

A credit card payment processing company agent approached my business and offered to try out their service for free for a month as a trial. However, I decided not to use it after this one month trial, and request to cancel. Now they have already charged $840 as cancellation fee and PoS deprecation fee. Since there was no contract, I don't agree to pay these fees. Do I really have to pay them?

A contract need not be written to be valid and enforceable. However, if there is no written contract, then in a dispute the burden of proving (via a preponderance of evidence) a contractual obligation falls on the party asserting it. In the scenario you describe it sounds like that would be impossible for the processing company.

Credit union holding car note, refuses to provide details of how payments have been applied

A credit union financed a car note for me. I never knew them before the loan transaction and I only have the car note there. Recently, my payments seem to not lower my loan balance as much as it should, meaning they are charging me for something I cannot see. I asked for online access to my history so I could check it. They said I had to open a depository account in order to have that feature. How can I concisely ask for my history so that I can figure out what is going on? Can they refuse to provide that?

They are probably not required to provide online access at all. They are probably required to provide some sort of written statement, unless you have waived that in favor of online or electronic versions. The exact requirements will vary in different jurisdictions.

What kinds of crimes do not affect persons or property?

A crime is a public offense, so I would think that anything that constitutes a crime has some kind of influence on one or more persons or property, i.e. it changes the public universe in some negative way. According to a recent CA Criminal Justice exam of mine, "A person may be guilty of a crime even where his or her act has no immediate effect upon the person or property of another." "Immediate" is not further defined. If this is true, what are some examples?

Yes, and sometimes it even makes perfect sense that such an activity would be a crime. For many crimes, attempting the crime is a crime. The attempt may have no actual effect on any person or property, but is still illegal. According to 16 U.S. Code § 1538 (a)(1)(C) it is illegal to kill an endangered species on the high seas. A whale in international waters cannot really be considered anyone's "property" (and since it's in international waters there can't even be some weird theory of it being the government's property) but it is still illegal. 18 U.S. Code § 700 purports to prohibit the desecration of a flag, although this was found unconstitutional. 18 U.S. Code § 708 makes it a crime to commercially use the coat of arms of the Swiss Confederation, for some reason. And 18 U.S. Code § 711a makes it a crime to use the slogan "Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute" for profit, except as authorized. (But maybe that sort of thing counts as intellectual property.) 18 U.S. Code § 342 makes it a crime to operate a passenger train under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This really only affects people and property if the train is driven improperly as a result; if you make it safely, you'd probably never even know. But the driver would still be facing up to 15 years in prison if he was caught doing that. And finally, according to A Crime a Day on Twitter: 33 USC §1232(b), 33 CFR §401.101 & §401.94(a) make it a federal crime to violate the St. Lawrence Seaway regulations by not having a copy of the St. Lawrence Seaway regulations while you pass through the St. Lawrence Seaway.

If a witness asks for their lawyer during a trial, how is it handled?

A criminal trial is going on. Andy the Attorney asks Walter the Witness some questions. After a while, Walter realizes he's been an idiot, and says he wants his Lawyer Larry. How does the court proceed? Do they set up a second trial with Walter and Larry before they can proceed with the first trial? Or what? Two examples: Walter said one thing (which wasn't exactly true), and Andy brought up evidence that Walter was lying. Walter would rightly like to consult his lawyer Larry at this point before saying anything else. Walter idiotically admits to a crime while serving as a witness. Walter would obviously want to consult with his lawyer Larry at this point, to amend his original statements. I am not a lawyer, so sorry if I'm completely ignorant of witness/court proceedings.

Generally speaking, witnesses are not legally represented at trial, unless they are also parties. While a witness may choose to seek legal advice about a request or order they have received to give evidence, they would generally be expected to take this opportunity before they actually show up at trial. A witness examination would not normally be adjourned because a witness said something damaging to their own credibility or to one party’s case, and would like to pause and obtain legal advice. One goal of cross-examination is to expose unreliable evidence by obtaining this kind of tactical advantage over a witness. It is up to the party whose case was damaged to try to fix the problem in re-examination or reply evidence. That party may not be particularly interested in protecting the witness’s personal interests. There may be exceptions in specific factual situations, when it becomes clear that a witness does not understand their right to object to giving evidence on the grounds of self-incrimination or some other privilege. A judge may choose to halt further questioning of the witness if there is a real risk of a mistrial or some other procedural unfairness, which can be addressed without unfairly depriving the cross-examiner of their opportunity to challenge the evidence.

Does COPPA ban children from playing video games online through a parent&#39;s account?

A customer service representative at Nintendo recently told me that a parent can't let their Nintendo Account be used by their child for online play without violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) and that Nintendo can ban accounts for COPPA violations. A parent, he claimed, could only share their account with a child for offline play without violating COPPA. I asked where within the Act such conduct is banned, and I was told I could find more information online. However, I thought that children under 13 can still legally give out personal information under COPPA so long as they have their parents' permission (although some sites like Facebook ban those under 13 simply to avoid having to deal with such issues). Was the customer service representative correct in claiming that it violates COPPA for a parent to let their child use the parent's account for online gaming? What if the parent and child consent (which seems to be implied)? If this does violate COPPA, please show where within the Act it's banned. Wikipedia article on COPPA: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/COPPA Nintendo Account User Agreement : https://accounts.nintendo.com/term/eula/US?lang=en-US

The COPPA regulations are here , and here is the FTC's explanation. The main thing to note is that there is no "ban" on children or parents, there is a "ban" on companies. The main features are that a company is forbidden from undertaking certain actions (in the realm of "gathering information") in circumstances that involve the internet and people under 13. The restrictions don't specifically say "you can(not) play a game online". But you can't gather information from children if that information in some way "identifies" the individual. The prohibition is against gathering such information from a child (not just information about a child), without "verifiable consent". Violation of the law results in severe fines, and it may be impossible to prohibit a child from providing forbidden information (even a recording of their voice is a violation). The procedures for obtaining "verifiable consent" are not trivial. The second sense according to which a child ban does exist is "if you do this, you violate the TOS, and you are banned". That's the situation you describe. COPPA does not mandate this specific condition as part of the ToS, it is instead a business decision on the part of the service provider that such-and-such is the level of legal risk that they are willing to assume. The relation between the law and the ban is indirect – it's what's necessary to remain legally safe, in the judgment of the company. Whether or not the ToS actually says what the agent thinks it says is a separate question: you would have to read the ToS for the account.

How can I make a sculpture substantially different?

A customer showed me an unremarkable angel figurine she had commissioned. Now that I've seen it, is it possible for me to make her another angel that is not derivative? Two people in the shop did not see the original. If I only give them dimensions, would it be safe to let them do the sculpture? I know the original artist only by reputation ("unpleasant", "litigious").

There are no copyright issues in making an angel Angels have been depicted in art and literature for hundreds of years. What an angel looks like is clearly public domain. Making an angel that looks like that angel is a derivative work If your angel copies whatever it is that is distinct and unique about the other angel, then that’s making a derivative work and needs permission. TL;DR Making an angel is not copyright violation. Making that angel is.

What specific law is broken if the merchant continue to charge the customer&#39;s card after the customer disabled his account?

A customer used to have a VIP account with a California social media company that charges a monthly subscription fee. In July 2021, the customer disabled his account and terminated his VIP. No service is received since July 2021. The customer did not log-on the social media platform and did not send/post any messages. However, for the whole year, the merchant is still charging the customer's card for an expensive subscription fee. The customer carefully read the merchant's T&C which does not explicitly allow the merchant to charge a fee for a disabled account; in fact, the word "disable" is not mentioned in their full T&C. However, the merchant claims that the customer was notified that "a disabled account can still incur VIP fees". The customer never receive any notification through email or mail. What rights does the consumer have in this case?

The fact that the terms and conditions do not mention the word "disable" is significant, but not in the way you seem to think. You state: "...the merchant's T&C which does not explicitly allow the merchant to charge a fee for a disabled account". However, this doesn't mean that the merchant needs to explicitly state that they may. What it actually means is that the merchant does not recognize the term "disable" in the context of terminating the service contract. (Did they use stop, terminate, delete, eliminate, fall into disuse, log off, etc. or any other similar expressions?) You haven't defined what "disable" means, but perhaps it is more like a "pause" in service for which payment is still required? (Like having the post office hold your mail vs terminating all deliveries.) What you need to do is to read the section of the T&Cs that deals with terminating service and payment, understand what is required, and execute the procedures they describe. Whatever words they use, do that. If you have done all the steps and can prove it then you have a case against them, otherwise you are arguing semantics and interpretation... As to the title question, it does not appear that any "law" has been broken, this is just a contractual misunderstanding. P.S. This is the reason why I always set up payments through my bank to "push" money to vendors rather than authorizing them to "pull" money from me. When I am done I notify them and stop paying. I don't need to ask them to please stop taking it from me.

Can a non-performing party to a contract hold the &quot;partially performing&quot; party to it?

A customer walks into a car dealership and buys a car, signing a contract with a down payment and monthly payments. The customer makes the down payment (partial performance). But when he wants to drive off with the car, the dealer says something like, "You can't have it today because we need to do one last safety check. We'll even deliver to your home in a day or to so you don't have to come down again." (Non performance). At the beginning of the next month, the car still hasn't been delivered to the customer, but the dealer asks for a monthly payment. What are the respective rights of the parties? Can the dealer compel a monthly payment without having delivered the car? Can the customer compel delivery of the car, or ask for his down payment back, withholding the monthly payment in the meantime?

The rights and obligations of parties to a contract are not defined in terms of the performance of the parties, unless it is. The first thing to do is look at the contract and see if anything says that payment can be suspended until the goods are delivered. I assume there is no such clause. So it appears that one party (the dealer) is in breach, and the question is what you can do. You may ignore the breach, sue over the breech, or you may negotiate for an alternative outcome. The first solution is, long-term, unsatisfactory, but easiest. The second solution is most complicated, and may be unsatisfactory (it depends on whether walking away from the deal is a viable option). The third solution, when paired with discussion (with the dealer) of the second option may be easiest and most satisfactory (e.g. "payments are not due until you hand over the car"). Two additional complications related to the fact that this is a car sale are (1) there may be state-specific laws related to delivery of the vehicle and (2) a loan from the dealer is not the same as a loan with a third party, arranged by the dealer. Failing to pay the third party is unambiguously a bad idea. Point 2 does, however, also impinge on your ability to negotiate a delay of the payment (it's out of the dealer's hands?). The question you need to know the answer to is, where in what contract does your obligation to pay come from. and is it dependent on delivery of the item, or just transfer of ownership without taking possession? If the contract says that payment is due on delivery, you are not required to pay until they have performed. In other words, it almost entirely depends on what the contract(s) require(s).

Can I Identify Facebook Stalker

A cyber stalker keeps making face accounts and messaging me, and leaving comments on my wall. I would like to identify who this person is. For which I would need his email and IP address, to begin with. I myself live in Texas, and the person stalking me is unknown to me. I'm thinking of doing the following: File a small claims civil suit against him for cyberstalking Since I do not know him, I can use the John Doe defendant Have the Texas court issue a subpoena for defendant's discovery Request out of state subpoena transfer to California Have Facebook response to the civil subpoena as per their policy I have two questions. a) Do you think flaws or problems in this approach? b) Since I'm in Texas, is it possible to directly sue in California remotely? Hiring a lawyer might be too expensive.

Do you have reason to believe that the person is in Texas? If he is Idaho, you'd need to sue him in Idaho. When you write up your claim, how would you describe the monetary damage that he has done to you? You can only sue for money, not an injunction or punitive damages. The rules say that you have to actually identify the defendant, e.g. here for example indicates that you have to provide The Defendant's complete name and address, of each person or business the Plaintiff's claim is against. Correct names and addresses are vital to the Plaintiff's case because the Court cannot grant a judgment against a Defendant who is improperly named in the petition. Therefore, the Plaintiff must determine the correct legal name and address of the person or business being sued before going to the Clerk. The courts generally have the power to reject a claim that is not properly filed, and you would face problems because you haven't properly filed the complaint, Texas isn't known to have jurisdiction, and the claim won't truthfully allege that the defendant owes you money. There is one other issue: Texas abolished small claims court a few years ago, and all such cases are heard in justice court, as a small claims case. Chapter 28 of the government code no longer exists, and 27.060 is all that remains. It appears that the rules are the same, but there is some updating still to be done, for example Rule 78a still says "The civil case information sheet is not required in cases filed in justice courts or small-claims courts", though there is no such court.

Is this a pyramid scheme? If so, how do I stop it?

A dear, yet very naive friend of mine has fallen into the hands of what I think to be a pyramid company ( operating from switzerland ). I've talked with this friend of mine for a while yet she is unwilling to overthink her decision. The company at hand sells food supplements, and offers you the possibility of "gaining money" by "working" as a salesperson for them. The food supplements are low-quality and extremely overpriced ( ~200$ for a package ). You can easily buy a similar package for 1/10th of the price. Now, "working" as a salesperson isn't really working for them, as you aren't employed. You have to buy the packages (for the FULL price), and then sell them online, refunds impossible (you lose the possibility of "working" for them). Once you've sold ~25 packages within a month, you get 10% off of your next package ( wow, amazing ). And this keeps on going, you're getting a few very small "benefits" the higher you get, at some point even money. The company has ~2-3 "selfmade" persons earning allegedly a few thousands per month just by selling those supplements online. My questions now are: Am I right to believe that this is indeed a pyramid scheme? How can I do something against this company?

It seems that your friend is taking part in a multi-level marketing scheme. However, this does not necessarily exclude a pyramid or snow ball scheme. Both can be illegal in Germany and Switzerland under the respective unfair business practices codes, because the systems do not rely on the sales of goods and services, but on the continuous recruitment of further sales persons. To clarify whether your friend's system is illegal, you could report the scheme to the competent watchdogs. In Germany the "Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs" in Bad Homburg is recommendable. As the company is operating from Switzerland, German law not be applicable without more. Therefore also contacting the Swiss authorities may be advisable. This seems to be the "Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft SECO" in Bern.

If I dispute a debt, and the creditor agrees to waive it, do I implicitly acknowledge the debt by accepting the waiver?

A debt collection agency engaged a law firm to send me a letter of demand. The debt is 5 years old and I am not aware of it until I received the demand letter. From my perspective, I don't owe the debt. I asked for more info but they decided to waive it instead. Do I implicitly acknowledge the debt by accepting the waiver? I don't know enough about the subject matter to provide the needed context or to ask a good question. Please let me know if I'm lacking clarity and I'll try to elaborate. Thank you

You don’t “accept” a waiver Waiving a right is a unilateral action - you aren’t involved. You can neither accept it nor reject it. What you can do is rely on that waiver as an estoppel to them changing their mind latter.

What can be done about unlawful garnishment?

A debt collector claims that you owe a debt. You dispute the debt. The debt collector "garnishes" your debt without the requisite court order. Your employer agrees to do so, and deducts the amount from your paycheck. What can you do? Can you sue the debt collector? Can you sue your employer for improperly cooperating? More to the point, what needs to be done to halt this process until the matter is sorted out? Is is possible to accomplish this pro se, or would you need a lawyer?

What can you do? Can you sue the debt collector? Can you sue your employer for improperly cooperating? Yes. Also report the debt collector to the appropriate regulatory agency for violation of laws relating to debt collection. Possibly refer the debt collector and/or employer to law enforcement and the DA for theft and fraud. Honestly, this is a pretty rare fact pattern. Far more common is for the debt collector to have a court judgment obtained by default against the debtor and for the debtor to not realize that the debtor has been served with process or for the debt collector to have used "sewer service" in which the process server lied about delivering process to the debtor. More to the point, what needs to be done to halt this process until the matter is sorted out? Probably it could be stopped with a temporary restraining order from the court in which the lawsuits are filed. But a letter to the employer and debt collector pointing out the there is no court order of judgment would probably stop the employer from coooperating. Is is possible to accomplish this pro se, or would you need a lawyer? You need a lawyer. This is very hard to do right pro se.

Confused as to the waiting period required after getting an order

A default judgement was awarded. It seems there are contradicting orders in how much time one must wait to get it enforced: As set out in 58.1 (3) of the CRTA, a part may only enforce this order if the time for making a notice of objection has passed and a Notice of Objection has not been filed. The party in default has no right to make a Notice of Object , as set out in section 56.1(2.1) of the CRTA. However I was also told Please note that you may only enforce this order if the time for making a Notice of Objection has passed. Please be advised that a Notice of Objection may be made by a participating party in a small claims proceeding who disagrees with the decision issued by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). These seem to contradict. This is a default judgment, and the other party did default. So doesn't the first paragraph apply and it can be enforced it ASAP? I asked the tribunal and they basically said hire a lawyer if I don't understand the decision.

doesn't the first paragraph apply and it can be enforced it ASAP? The first excerpt applies, but that does not mean that judgment is enforceable immediately. Section 56.1(2.1) reflects the possibility that " the default is set aside by the tribunal ". This is likely to occur if the counterparty proves that a reasonable cause prevented him from addressing the complaint. As for contradictions between first and second excerpts, there is none. The second excerpt refers to a participating party. Obtaining a default judgment suggests that the counterparty did not appear (and therefore did not participate ) in the proceedings.

As a citizen, we have the right to a speedy and fair trial by jury of our PEERS. How does a group of one&#39;s peers present their attendance to a judge?

A defendant has the right to be tried by his peers. A group of the defendant's peers want to attend the trial as these peers. How do we confront the judge with our rights to be those peers? Peers are not court appointed jury.

A defendant has the right to be tried by his peers. In the U.S., this is an incorrect belief. A defendant does not has the right to be tried by his peers in the U.S. The "jury of his peers" language is a legacy of English law in the days when aristocrats were entitled to a jury of aristocrats rather than commoners, while commoners were entitled to a jury of commoners. The sole legacy of that in U.S. law is in court-martials in which officers are entitled to have their cases heard by a panel of fellow officers, rather than by a panel of active duty military personnel generally. Outside of court-martials in the U.S., the "jury of his peers" concept was eliminated not later than the time when the current U.S. constitution was adopted (in 1789) which eliminated hereditary titles of nobility, or when 6th Amendment to the Bill of Rights was adopted (as applicable in federal criminal cases) which was adopted in 1791. Instead, the Courts have interpreted the 6th Amendment right to trial by jury, which has now been applied to state and local governments as well, to require that the jury be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community (regardless of what an individual jury actually ends up as) and to have people who are conflicted or biased removed from the jury.

Why would a party to civil proceeding suggest amicus curiae (counsel assisting the court)?

A defendant in a civil proceeding chooses to play no active part and says they will abide the court's decision. However, they add that because " the Court is left with no active contradictor in the proceedings ... the Court may wish to direct the Solicitor-General to appoint counsel to appear and be heard as counsel assisting the Court in this proceeding ". NZ courts indeed can do this under rule 10.22 , which the defendant explicitly refers to: 10.22 Counsel assisting At the request of the court, the Solicitor-General must appoint counsel to appear and be heard as counsel assisting the court. What would be the defendant's motivation for such a suggestion? What would they want to achieve by having the court appoint an amicus curiae?

An amicus curiae , in my experience, is appointed to consider the law, not the facts. Just because the defendant does not wish (or cannot afford) to contest this case does not mean the law is clearly on the plaintiff's side; and if it is not, you might get the result where the plaintiff's counsel sees a difficulty, but feels his responsibility to his client does not enable him to explore the point: and the judge also sees the potential problem, but cannot take account of it if it has not been argued before him. So the Court would be constrained to find for the plaintiff, and possibly set a precedent, when everyone in court knows it should not. [I am well aware that this is oversimplified; it's just an explanation of theory]. So the court (or in NZ the Solicitor-General) appoints counsel to argue whatever points can properly be argued. This is done for the benefit of justice as a whole; but since it may also lead to an undisputed claim being dismissed, it also benefits the defendant.

Lying in Court in the UK

A defendant provable lied in court. We had no right of reply to prove the lies were false. Nothing has been done afterwards. He was found guilty, but received a very light sentence probably based on these lies. Is this normal?

Is this normal? Pretty much. Witnesses lie in court all the time (in my experience, defendants, law enforcement officers and medical doctors are the most likely to lie). Dealing with a witness who lies in court under oath effectively is one of the most challenging tasks lawyers face. It is an inherently challenging hurdle to proving or defending a case. The facts as presented in court often differ in some material way from reality. It is a pretty tough thing to accurately measure, but my gut estimate would be that this happens in a least 30%-40% of cases that produce contested trials, although not infrequently, a judge or jury will not find the false testimony to be credible. On the other hand, it isn't at all uncommon (probably at least 10% of the time) for a judge or jury to believe the liars to be telling the truth, and to find the people who are telling the truth to be less credible. There is absolute immunity from civil liability for lying in court testimony, although it could, in theory, give rise to contempt of court sanctions from the judge in some circumstances, or to a prosecution for perjury. But, perjury prosecutions are, in practice, very rare, and a good share of them arise from false statements made in documents under oath, rather than from courtroom testimony. There is probably less than 1 perjury prosecution per 1000 provable lies made under oath in courtroom testimony on material issues that end up influencing the outcome in a case. I totally sympathize with how frustrating this situation is having been there in cases that I am litigating many, many times. But, in short, life isn't fair.

Doctrine of balancing the relative conveniences of the parties

A defense claim of Equitable Estoppel is invoked: ...Claims are barred in part of by the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel...enforcing the Governing Documents as alleged by Petitioners would be oppressive and unreasonable. Furthermore Petitioner's claims are barred by the doctrine of balancing the relative convenience of the Parties Despite Googling the matter, a simple explanation of the bolded notion is sought: examples are helpful links are appreciated Although IANAL, an explanation at a STEM Bachelor's degree level is appreciated.

The Law Dictionary defines the Balance of Convenience as: to balance the relief given to the plaintiff against the injury that will be done to the defendant. And gives this hypothetical example: The court weighed the balance of convenience and opted not to grant the injunction requested by the plaintiff in light of the harm it would do to the defendant.

Demand Letter Response Window

A demand letter is to be sent to remedy a breach of contract. I believe the request should be time-bound so that the defendant understands when expenses are will begin to accrue: expenses that they will be held liable (court filing fees, legal fees, etc.) Is there a a rule of thumb for setting a response time? My initial reaction is 5 business days, because the plaintiff has emailed the remedy to the defendant and has been documented that a board meeting voted against remedying the breach.

I don't think there is a way to give a useful answer here. The time will depend on the nature of the alleged breech, the nature of the underlying contract, the industry, and how much urgency the demanding party feels the situation warrants. Some contracts will specify a time frame. If nothing is specified, probably a "reasonable time" is allowed. what is reasonable will depend on the customs of the industry involved, and the nature of the specific situation. If there is a safety issue, say or a risk of irreparable loss, things are more urgent than if it is say a purely financial issue.

Artistic representation of 100+ year old lamp

A designer drew a logo for me. It is an artistic representation of a lamp screen with recognizable traits, together with text. The original lamp was created more than 100 years ago, in the early 1900s. The specific lamp used as model for this artistic representation is a newer one made by someone else, but it maintains the main traits of the original. Originally, the design was patented, but the patent expired long ago. Many manufacturers have mass produced their versions of this lamp later, and variants are for sale everywhere. Still, I am wondering if there may be copyright at play here: The original creator died less than 70 years ago. Can using this logo create any problems for me? Can laws vary from country to country, making this problematic only in some countries? (I want to use a nickname that is associated with this type of lamp together with the logo. The name is not trademarked in any domain. Also, I should note that my product has nothing to do with lamps.)

The work fell out of copyright and into the public domain. Once that happens, the copyright does not arise again from the public domain work, even if the copyright law changes. Of course, the logo designer would have a copyright over the interpretation of the design to the extent that the work for hire doctrine didn't apply or the copyright wasn't assigned from the logo designer.

State&#39;s Attorney Lied In Court

A detective was subpoenaed to testify. He did not show up. His absence was objected to, and the State's Attorney said she would have to look into it. The detective was asked about his absence when a subpoena for the next court date was served, and he said the State's Attorney told him he did not have to testify that day. A Motion to Disqualify the Prosecuting Attorney was filed and listed that she told the court she would have to look into why the detective was not there, and he said she told him he was not needed. At the hearing for the motion, she said she met the detective in the hallway and told him he was not needed to testify as there were no motions set for that day, and that she had not been given a copy of the motion. Saying she has to look into it, when she actually told him he was not needed, is not honest. Is there any case law regarding a State's Attorney telling someone who is subpoenaed that he is not needed that day?

Not remembering something correctly is not lying To lie, you have to know the statement is false at the time you make it. As a State’s Attorney she no doubt deals with multiple cases and a plethora of detectives. Not remembering in the moment what you said to one detective is not malfeasance, it’s just human. Telling the court you don’t know and will find out and then finding out is good practice. It’s possible that the attorney didn’t remember the conversation until she spoke to the detective again. It’s possible she still doesn’t remember the conversation and is just taking the detective at his word. It is often useful to remember Hanlon’s Razor : Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Outline Planning application on my land

A developer has submitted an outline planning application (major matters reserved for a later date) using part of our land as access to a larger site. We have a covenant on our land that would forbid an access road. We are going to refuse any access but the planning department is still considering the application in an outline form even though we have expressed our refusal to co-operate. Is there any legal way we can get him/the council to stop the application? We suspect he is aiming to get outline plans then start trying to convince us to sell, but we feel loyalty to neighbours who are objecting and will not sell. Do we need an injunction or is there a breach of planning rules we can reference?

I am going to assume you are in England and Wales (because you use terms like outline planning permission and major matters reserved ). If this is not correct, my answer may not apply. There is absolutely nothing to stop a developer submitting a planning application to knock your house down, and build a block of flats on the site. Obviously they can't actually demolish the house without your permission - but they ask the local authority "what do you think of this idea?" Needing your land is not a breach of any planning rules (and, as you say, the builder will be planning to persuade you to agree). The covenant looks promising, but if you go ahead and allow the road to be built, who could enforce the covenant? If the person (natural or legal) who has the right to enforce no longer exists, and hasn't passed the right on to some successor then the covenant is worthless. Similarly if the person who has the right to enforce is now owned or can be bought off by the builder, the covenant is worthless. You can object to the planning application in the normal way, but do make sure that you object on proper planning grounds (loss of amenity, overlooked, not according to the local plan, over-developed, etc). You can also write to the developer directly (not the planning department), saying that they shouldn't waste any further time on this project, as you will not be cooperating. (This only works if there is no other property they could use as an access. If the project is large enough, they may even be able to buy another house, demolish it, and build the road through there.)

Can the USA military be used as a police force domestically?

A discussion on a sister Stack Exchange site led me to ask this question. Under what conditions can a branch of the military (excluding the Coast Guard for technical reasons) be used in an active role in law enforcement operations domestically in the United States? By active, I am envisioning active duty soldiers from the Army, Air Force, Navy or Marines breaking down doors and arresting suspects, so above and beyond manning checkpoints and road blocks or logistical operations in support of local law enforcement. Can the President make this decision unilaterally acting under the Insurrection Act , or does he or she need the consent of Congress as specified in 18 U.S. Code § 1385 ? If it depends, what does it depend on?

The use of the active duty military in a law enforcement role is not unconstitutional but it is prohibited by the posse comitatus act . 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (adopted 1878). The text of the relevant legislation is as follows: 18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense): 10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law. The act does not apply to the National Guard mobilized at the request of a state governor. In practice, 10 U.S.C. § 375 has more bite because a federal prosecutor can and usually would refrain from prosecuting a crime ordered by his ultimate boss, the President, and there is not legal duty to prosecute every possible crime, but 10 U.S.C. § 375 creates an affirmative duty on the party of the Secretary of Defense that might be enforceable in a civil action.

What legal consequences could an employee face who sabotages a company website?

A disgruntled employee who left our company a few weeks ago linked an external file that edits the DOM of our website for people who are not logged in and not on our IP Address (which prevented us from detecting it for some time). This makes a dialogue window open that says [Our Company Name] recommends the app [Ex-employee's personal app], check it out on the app store now. And then a button that takes people to the app store or one that cancels the popup. What torts and crimes has this person committed?

This would at a minimum constitute intentional interference with contract and a breach of the employee's duty of loyalty to the company while employed giving rise potential to money damages (proving damages could be difficult) and possibly also disgorgement of profits he made during that time period and forfeiture of his salary during the time period after he did that. It might also constitute the somewhat obscure tort of "injurious falsehood", which is a fraud relied upon by someone that is intended to and does hurt a third party. It would also probably constitute some form of computer crime, although I'd need to do more research to cite chapter and verse.

Do you owe money to a company who is trying to charge a disabled/expired credit card?

A disposable credit card company from the US wrote 'recently' on their twitter Canceling a subscription can be difficult, time consuming, and frustrating. Or it can be as easy as clicking a button and closing/pausing your [...] card. Source: https://twitter.com/PrivacyHQ/status/1083048623678672900 So the way this works is that you have one virtual card per merchant/transaction and you can easily disable the card from the application (e.g. you sign up for a Netflix free trial and disable the card straight away). My understanding is that if you fail to pay the company they can sue you for failure to pay and still demand the money in question. The one thing I can imagine affecting this is whether the company continued to provide the service in question (e.g. in the case of Netflix they will block your account when the payment fails), but I can't think of any legal basis how that would make a difference (as you still have a legal agreement to pay).

You owe money if there is a contract obliging you to pay. Whether you receive what you pay for (e.g. services) only affects your stance when suing for non-performance/damages; your obligation to pay still stands until the court decides it does not (or there is a mutual agreement to discharge the contract). It is irrelevant whether the original payment method still works or not. If it does not but you still owe money — you have to pay. The ability to turn the credit card off is just a handy feature. It does not affect your contractual obligations in any way except for when the terms explicitly provide for it (like automatic cancelling subscription when payment method fails).

What happens if someone knowingly accepts a contract with some invalid terms?

A dispute arose between me and my ex-landlord. Before any litigation, I told him the things I expected that he wasn't doing. His response was to agree to do them, provided I would agree to various unenforceable things. Would such a contract have any effects? If the things he agreed to were enforceable but mine weren't, would he still have to do them even if I didn't? For example, the landlord rented out a storage area to an extra person. He said he would somehow share the money to lower others costs, but the details were never clear and weren't in writing. When he did not share the money, I reminded him he had agreed to. His response was "I will share it if you agree not to undermine my leadership or complain" (these were literally the words he used). If I agreed to these terms what would happen? I give this example assuming undermining leadership isn't legally enforceable. Now that litigation has started, can I present this as evidence of some kind?

A promise that a court would not enforce by injunction can still be valid consideration and be part of a valid contract. Failure to carry out such obligations would lead to some measure of money damages, most likely. On the other hand, provisions specifically barred by law, or against public policy, such as a promise to commit a crime, are void from the start, and form no part of a valid contract. Such provisions may be treated by a court as if they had just been left out, or if they were essential to the contract, or formed the sole consideration, the whole contract might be considered void. If a term is too vague for a court to determine if it has been violated or not, the court may try to clarify it, or may just ignore it. Just what it would mean for a tenant to "undermine the leadership" of a landlord is not clear to me, at least. That might well be held to be "too vague". As to "not complain" it may be that a tenant has a legal right to make official complaints, which cannot be waived by contract. Or it may not, depending on the local laws.

Can I ask for disclosure of CCTV to be used in Appeal against Possession order in UK

A district Judge made an unfair and biased possession order to make me homeless despite I provided large volume of evidence such as digitally dated photos, Facebook photos, over than 8 neighbours written statements...., to prove that I never parted with possession of my only home. A CCTV camera was operating in front of and back of my building for the period in question. Can I ask the Court or the respondent to disclose the recording of CCTV camera as to prove that I was continuously living at my flat as my only home and never parted with Possession. This to contradict that Judge decision that my evidence were not credible was wrong.

Normally, in British courts, once a trial has been conducted, only the evidence admitted at that trial (called the "record") may be considered on appeal. Additional evidence demonstrating that the factual findings of the judge at the trial were incorrect may not be considered in an appeal. More generally, credibility determinations made by trial judges in evaluating evidence in a case are almost never overturned on appeal in the English legal system. I have done some preliminary review and found nothing to indicate that an appeal of a district judge in county court in England and Wales is not a court of record , from which an appeal is by trial de novo (i.e. a new trial before a higher judge) (as is the case in criminal cases in Magistrate's court in England ), rather than being a court of record, from which an appeal is based upon a review of the record of the original trial. If you subpoenaed the CCTV evidence for trial and either had the evidence which the judge kept out, or denied you a continuance to obtain the subpoenaed evidence which was not produced by the party subject to the subpoena, then an appellate court might order that a new trial at which the CCTV evidence be considered be held. But, if you weren't in a possession to compel introduction of the CCTV evidence at trial, you can't raise that evidence on appeal. to prove that I never parted with possession of my only home. I also suspect that part of the problem you face may be that there was an issue other than whether you parted with possession of your only home that was legally relevant at your trial. Not having somewhere else to live is not usually a valid defense to an eviction. Normally, the primarily issue would be whether you paid rent as agreed and whether received proper notice of the eviction action. Whether you abandoned the property and were out of possession is potentially a relevant issue, but is rarely the only issue that you have to establish. The issue of whether you are currently in possession is not normally something that has to be proved as part of a complaint to receive a standard possession order in county court before a district judge. So, the evidence you want to get in suggests that you may be having a misunderstanding regarding what a possession order means and why it was obtained.