Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Flat

like 0

Business sending personal info to a random email address

Is there a recourse against a business sending personal information of a customer to a wrong email address? For example, if I provide a correct email address to the business through an online form, but, (1), their representative cuts out a significant part of the username, or, (2), their systems somehow mangle it, in a reproducible fashion such that the resulting address is still valid and belongs to someone else. What if they send the full name and credit-card/billing/shipping addresses, and possibly some credit card details relating to an order, to such a random email address, what recourse does the customer has against such a business? What if the business refuses to correct email address, claiming that the order has already been made? Would that be an extra count of negligence if they continue mailing information to such a wrong email address?

I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. You do not identify a jurisdiction and the answer will turn almost entirely on this. As an Australian I will deal with that jurisdiction. Privacy Law The Privacy Act 1988 governs personal information of or an opinion of an identifiable individual collected and held by Australian Government Agencies and businesses with a turnover of more than $3 million. See http://www.oaic.gov.au/ . States and territories have similar legislation that fills some of the gaps. Under that legislation you have a number of rights, the most applicable to your circumstances being: the right to have your information corrected the right to complain On the face of it the actions taken would be in breach of the legislation if committed by an entity covered. It is worth noting that if your name and address are published (say in the phone book) then they are not personal information; credit card details would be personal information. Consumer Law There may be a breach here - it would depend on the exact law in the jurisdiction. Common Law In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: had a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. Where a case would fall over is on point 4.; what harm, in the sense of an actual loss, have you suffered? I can't see that you have actually suffered any damage. If you were to suffer credit card fraud or identity theft and you could prove that the company was the source of the information you would have a case for the loss. You could seek an order of the court to make them correct their records

Format of a Deposition

Is there a set / standard format for a deposition? Not the process - the format of the text document. For example are page numbers and line numbers always the same? If so what are the rules around the format? I need to parse the document down for a computer application. This is really more of a comment but I think it presents better up here: There are not that many steno machines. They were around before computer files so do not look at it as as an interchange format. Cannot find specs on them but I suspect they only put out so many formats so I just need to chase them all down.

You're unlikely to find anything that is identically placed across all jurisdictions in the United States. In terms of parsing a deposition, you're better off using a training corpus of depositions to identify the language that is used for certain elements, so that you can extract that information based on the form it takes, rather than its positioning on a page.

How can a municipality discourage and control destructive behavior?

I live in a town of about 20,000 people, plus a large college student influx in late August, in the state of New York. Not far from my house there is a dam in a creek. Just above the dam, there are bluffs on either side where people like to jump off from very high up into the water. Then they swim over to the bank and clamber up the (eroded) slope to do it again. News about the thrill of jumping at this spot has been spreading throughout the region, and the spot is now attracting 300 people per day in good weather. There are a number of problems with this: - Alcohol and serious drug use is increasing among the visitors (e.g. Ecstasy). - We're starting to see all-night parties occurring there. - The visitors leave their cars on nearby residential streets and cause a public nuisance -- littering, blocking residents' access to their driveways, peeing on people's lawns, changing clothes in public, being rude to residents. - There are occasional injuries at the location and every few years someone drowns there. Swimming, jumping, drinking, littering and staying past dark are all illegal there, but these activities are only a violation. Penalties are listed as "a fine of not more than $250 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 15 days, and not less than $100 or 25 hours of community service." Our local law enforcement doesn't have enough staffing to go there every day to patrol the area, and when they do go, they feel so outnumbered that they don't feel that it's safe to issue citations -- they are concerned there might be a violent backlash from the crowd. Question 1: Would it be stronger deterrent to make swimming and jumping a criminal offense, with stronger penalties? Question 2: How would concerned citizens draft a law to make swimming and jumping a criminal offense? Question 3: The creek is owned by the City (the smallest entity geographically); the area around the dam is under Town jurisdiction; the policing around the dam is provided by the County sheriff's department, because the Town does not have its own police force. My question is, at which level should we propose a stronger law? Question 4: Anything else to suggest? Barbed wire? near water's edge, tangled in with the underbrush?

I'll preface this by saying I live in Australia where the lowest jurisdiction that can make an act a criminal offence is the state; local governments simply do not have that power here, Question 1: If I understand this right you have a law that you do not enforce that carries moderate sanctions and you are asking that a law that you do not enforce with greater sanctions will be a greater deterrent? Well ... no (see here ). If you want to stop the behavior you have to enforce the sanctions that you have in a fair and impartial way. I would suggest that you make it very clear that starting in early September the laws will be enforced - that gives people fair warning. Then, each weekend in September you bring in enough police (State Troopers?) to enforce the law. Its not going to take many $250 fines to make people stop. Question 2: No comment. Question 3: No comment. Question 4: Sounds like a good way of getting the city sued for negligence; just because people are breaking the law does not make it legal to hurt them. If you are serious then fencing the entire area may be worthwhile but the area would still need to be policed.

How can casinos take "extrajudicial" measures against card counters?

"Cardcounting" is technically legal, but frowned upon by casinos, because it violates the "unwritten law" that casinos are supposed to come out ahead. When card counters are caught, casinos can expel them under threat of being charged with trespassing. But apparently casinos sometimes do more than that, like refusing to cash out their chips, or taking card counters to back rooms for questioning. (Detention and questioning are powers supposedly reserved for law enforcement. The casinos are only supposed to detain people until the police arrive.) How do casinos manage to conduct such "extrajudicial" proceedings? Do the police and courts turn a blind eye to them because the casinos are important to the local economy?

Extrajudicial implies there is some weight of law behind the casino behaviors you describe. I don't think there is. For example, refusing to cash out chips could just be a management intimidation tactic to try to coerce the customer into agreeing to be "questioned." Which the customer would be under no legal obligation to do. Card counting can't be proven if the counter is not using a device of any kind. The casino can refuse to serve the customer and expel the customer but they can't unilaterally keep the customer's money by not cashing the customer's chips without a judgment. I am not an attorney. This answer is not legal advice.

Liabilities without explicit consent in contracts

I have been wondering for quite a while now about the following question and have been unable to get a definitive answer. I have asked lawyers who do not know for sure (and this is their field). My question is if a User of some Service can be held liable for a legal infringement that the Service commits. That sentence was a bit confusing, so let me explain/elaborate: In the case of Kazaa (I think it was called), a file sharing service, some users were held liable for the illegal downloading of music from this service. The users had to pay horrendous fines for in essence using the services which facilitated these actions. I am not sure if the Users signed a contract that says that they are liable for (knowingly or unknowingly) illegally downloading music from the Service. If a contract was signed, then that would definitely justify the fines to the Users, not the Service. Here is a theoretical example: A company sells a service which allows users to mask their IPs so that it seems that they are in the continental US. A user, "Bob Doe", is using this service. The user does not have to sign any contracts or sign their consent to anything. This user attempts to use an unaffiliated service which is only available in the continental US (and a couple other places) and prohibits its use outside of it (a service such as this one is Netflix, I think). Bob Doe uses Netflix in Uzbekistan (definitely not a place where Netflix is available) through the first mentioned service that masks his IP. Is Bob Doe held liable for any legal complications resulting from his use of Netflix through the IP masking service or is the IP masker shielding him too (is this IP masking service held liable)? I have also heard the argument that the User is causing the Service to commit an illegal act, hence the User is responsible (even though no contract was signed by the user). My question basically is: If a User does not sign a contract saying that they are held liable for any illegal act which they 'cause the Service to commit', then who is held liable; who has to pay the fines? Thanks a lot for any responses! All are welcome and greatly appreciated!

It is unlikely that you find a commercial provider of a service such as the one you describe that does not require its users to consent to some kind of agreement. The service provider, in spite of the absence of a contract, is unlikely to be held liable or named as a defendant in proceedings unless it can be shown that they ought to have been aware of the activities being undertaken. If it is found that the service provider reasonably ought to have been aware, and could have taken steps to prevent the activity, they could possibly be named as a defendant, in addition to or instead of the end user. See A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. , 239 F.3d 1004 (2001) for a court decision with a similar fact pattern involving copyright infringement, rather than contract breach. It is also unclear whether such a case would be tried in the US, though it is likely. The end user is likely to be in breach of Netflix's Terms of Use (relevant clause extracted below); in this case, Netflix would have to sue for breach of contract, and it is quite likely that judgement would be in their favour. The possible damages awarded would vary by jurisdiction. Essentially - yeah, the user is almost certainly going to breach contract. There generally aren't fines for it, but a court may order restitutional damages and/or an injunction. Netflix Terms of Use 4.3. You may view a movie or TV show through the Netflix service primarily within the country in which you have established your account and only in geographic locations where we offer our service and have licensed such movie or TV show.

Re-posting a screenshot on Stack Exchange or Quora

Can Bob legally post a screenshot of a program in a Stack Exchange or Quora post, and if so does he need to add any form of credit along with the screenshot? Bob didn't take the screenshot himself, he found it somewhere on Internet (e.g. on the software editor's website). The screenshot hasn't been modified at all: it's simply an image showing the program.

US copyright law has an exception for fair use ; small portions of a copyrighted work may be used without permission, license, or royalties if they are used for educational or demonstrative purposes. Taking your own screenshots of a commercial software product would probably be fair use. I doubt that a screenshot provided by the developer would be fair use. Such a screenshot would probably be considered a work of its own, and carry a separate copyright. This is why, for example, Wikipedia often prefers original photos of products rather than manufacturers' marketing materials. Fair use is decided on a case by case basis; it's impossible to know for sure whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is covered by the exception until the copyright holder sues you for infringement. As for the Creative Commons issue mentioned in the comments on the original question, I don't see a problem. Screenshots of commercial are often used in third party books and magazines with a fair use rationale; the For Dummies series is a great example. I'm conjecturing here, but if you have a legal right to use a portion of a work without permission or license in your own work, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to license that work under any terms you wish.

Do warranty disclaimers in software licenses carry any legal weight?

Most open source software licenses contain, in capital letters, the following disclaimer: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Does such a disclaimer carry any legal weight? That is, if my license doesn't contain such a clause, can I as a distributor of the software be held liable for damages, and if it does contain such a clause, does it effectively prevent me for being held liable?

Some jurisdictions provide for statutory warranties on fitness and merchantability of goods. The effect of these exclusion clauses will vary between jurisdictions, so I will briefly examine two different effects of law with respect to supply of goods. For the United States, certain warranties are implied in the sale of a product, provided for in the Uniform Commercial Code § 2-314 , (1) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchantwith respect to goods of that kind. Under this section the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale. (2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as (a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and (b) in the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and (c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and (d) run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and (e) are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and (f) conform to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any. (3) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade. The Uniform Commercial Code § 2-315 states that: Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose. This means that the warranties in § 2-314 will generally apply to products that are sold, unless excluded as per § 2-316 UCC § 2-316 (2) Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Licenses that specifically exclude implied warranty are sanctioned by the UCC, and therefore would be considered in the United States. UCC §2-106 defines a sale as passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price. States may have additional laws that may affect the interpretation of the UCC. For example, Ark.Code Ann. § 4–1–201(32) : (29) "Purchase" means taking by sale, lease, discount, negotiation, mortgage, pledge, lien, security interest, issue or reissue, gift, or any other voluntary transaction creating an interest in property. However, Neuhoff v. Marvin Lumber and Cedar Co. , 370 F.3d 197 (1st Cir.2004) held that windows provided free of charge to replace defective windows did not come with implied warranty. However, not all jurisdictions allow the exclusion of implied warranty. For instance, consider Australian Consumer Law . (Part 3-2, Division 1): 54 Guarantee as to acceptable quality (1) If: (a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and (b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction; there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality. (2) Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as: (a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and (b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and (c) free from defects; and (d) safe; and (e) durable; as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3). 64 Guarantees not to be excluded etc. by contract (1) A term of a contract (including a term that is not set out in the contract but is incorporated in the contract by another term of the contract) is void to the extent that the term purports to exclude, restrict or modify, or has the effect of excluding, restricting or modifying: (a) the application of all or any of the provisions of this Division; or (b) the exercise of a right conferred by such a provision; or (c) any liability of a person for a failure to comply with a guarantee that applies under this Division to a supply of goods or services. (2) A term of a contract is not taken, for the purposes of this section, to exclude, restrict or modify the application of a provision of this Division unless the term does so expressly or is inconsistent with the provision. 67 Conflict of laws If: (a) the proper law of a contract for the supply of goods or services to a consumer would be the law of any part of Australia but for a term of the contract that provides otherwise; or (b) a contract for the supply of goods or services to a consumer contains a term that purports to substitute, or has the effect of substituting, the following provisions for all or any of the provisions of this Division: (i) the provisions of the law of a country other than Australia; (ii) the provisions of the law of a State or a Territory; the provisions of this Division apply in relation to the supply under the contract despite that term. What the above sections mean : (54) there are implied statutory warranties (64) that cannot be excluded by contract, (67) and applies even if the proper law of a contract is not Australia. It is important to note that these do not depend on the existence of a contract (see 54(1)); gifts are covered, though I am unaware of any case law on this. In addition, title (s51) and non-infringement ("undisturbed possession") (s52) must be guaranteed by the supplier and cannot be excluded. In addition, the mere existence of this statement, purporting to limit or remove guarantees that cannot be limited or excluded, puts the supplier in breach of s29 as they are making a "false or misleading statement in connection with the supply, possible supply or promotion of goods or services". This is a criminal or civil offence and can be punished by fines of up to $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for a person other than a body corporate plus injunctions, damages, compensatory orders and other remedies. However, a simple "To the extent permitted by law ..." at the start would make this legal. So, does it have an effect? Sometimes. But not always. And at least in the United States, there are specific requirements if you want to exclude implied/statutory warranty.

Precedent of doctor being sued after giving his private phone number

I'm looking for a precedent of a doctor getting sued after giving his private phone number for a patient to consult, yet not being available at a moment of emergency.

You don't specify what country's law you're interested in, but as you mention precedent, I'll assume you're interested in common-law jurisdictions such as the United States. The short answer is: you won't find any successful lawsuits such as you describe, at least not without some significant additional facts. In order to be subject to liability, a person needs to commit a breach of some duty. In a civil suit, this needs to be a duty to the plaintiff. In order for it to be actionable for the doctor to not answer the phone, the doctor would have to have somehow assumed a duty to answer the phone at that particular time. Giving someone your phone number is not, in and of itself, a promise that you will never take a shower, or go to a movie, or let your battery run down, or for any other reason be unwilling or unable to answer your phone at a moment's notice. In addition, the patient would have to demonstrate that the doctor, by failing to answer the phone, caused some sort of harm. If the patient is having a medical emergency of some sort, the doctor's advice will almost certainly be: "Hang up and dial 911." This is something the patient can do without the doctor's help. Without some more significant and compelling facts, no court is going to impose a duty on a doctor to sit by the phone waiting for a patient's call.

Demanding lawyer fee discount after weak representation

Is there a practice or custom of demanding reduced legal fees for poor performance? Background example: Our company was sued for alleged patent infringement. We provided a detailed explanation to our lawyers and plaintiff for why the patent in question was extremely narrow and the infringement allegations were baseless. The plaintiff persisted, and our lawyers constantly tried to persuade us to settle with the plaintiff (under terms that were not favorable to us). After a year of litigation the lawsuit ended with an in-person meeting with plaintiffs and one of our lawyers. We had other agents present who helped explain that if the plaintiffs were to lose in court they would lose their claimed patent rights, whereas if we were to lose we would lose an insignificant amount of our income. The lawsuit was concluded by a dismissal without prejudice. We feel that our lawyer did not vigorously and competently represent our interests and claims, and also that as a result of their incompetence and inattention the dispute was far more protracted than necessary. Is there a common basis for demanding a discount in the lawyer's bills for these complaints?

In general you can dispute and negotiate any bill from a professional. The stronger your arguments for disputing it, and the more coherent your demands for adjustment, the more successful you will tend to be. This is like any business negotiation. One partner at a very large U.S. law firm once admitted to me that their corporate clients almost always ask for – and receive – billing adjustments. Of course, when push comes to shove, unless you're accusing the lawyer of fraudulent billing, then typically by contract you are liable for the bills. However, non-lawyers often assume that they will lose any dispute with their lawyers because it seems like lawyers have free access to the legal system. The reality is that there is a significant threshold that must be met before a law firm will sue a client for payment. That threshold will depend on the firm's opportunity costs, the costs of litigation, their assessment of reputational risks, how much they expect to actually collect, and sometimes just how ticked off they are.

Demanding lawyer fee discount after weak representation

Is there a practice or custom of demanding reduced legal fees for poor performance? Background example: Our company was sued for alleged patent infringement. We provided a detailed explanation to our lawyers and plaintiff for why the patent in question was extremely narrow and the infringement allegations were baseless. The plaintiff persisted, and our lawyers constantly tried to persuade us to settle with the plaintiff (under terms that were not favorable to us). After a year of litigation the lawsuit ended with an in-person meeting with plaintiffs and one of our lawyers. We had other agents present who helped explain that if the plaintiffs were to lose in court they would lose their claimed patent rights, whereas if we were to lose we would lose an insignificant amount of our income. The lawsuit was concluded by a dismissal without prejudice. We feel that our lawyer did not vigorously and competently represent our interests and claims, and also that as a result of their incompetence and inattention the dispute was far more protracted than necessary. Is there a common basis for demanding a discount in the lawyer's bills for these complaints?

Take it as a given that you can always ask, even ask forcefully, for a discount. If the supplier agrees to a discount then the contract has been modified. You need to consider: What you asked your lawyer to do What fee you agreed to pay for that work Did they perform the work that was asked of them and charge the fee that was agreed? If the answer to the last question is yes then you are legally obliged to pay. From your description, it is not clear that the lawyer in question ever offered poor advice. They may have had extremely good reasons for suggesting that you settle early; for a start that reduced everyone's costs and avoids the vagaries of a judge's decision - the law may be fair and impartial but judges are people; you don't want to go in front of a judge who's just had a fight with their spouse. As for "not vigorously and competently representing" you; there is nothing in what you have said that supports this. Suggesting that you settle to you in private does not say anything about how vigorously they put your case to the other side; I have no doubt that their lawyers were suggesting that they settle too. A year of litigation over a trade mark is an extremely rapid case (certainly in Australia it would be). The wheels of justice roll impartially, majestically and slowly ! Settling on the steps of the courthouse is extremely common and some litigants actually have that as their plan all along - they hope that you will blink first. Think of it as a learning experience; look at what it cost you with your lawyers fees and your experts and your own time and the next time you get sued make a without prejudice offer of about 50% of that. Justice is an expensive luxury - just get on with Business.

Do user agreements with a company carry on after corporate mergers or splits?

I wanted to ask in regards to the eBay/PayPal split about a month ago. Namely: Do the user agreements continue once the companies split? In my mind, because PayPal is splitting off into its own company and eBay is remaining as the same company: In order for a person to continue using PayPal, in effect he must agree to a new user agreement. New company, new rules and regulations. If so, how would this affect users who are not in good standing? With this said, After the split, users in good standing were asked if they agreed to the new terms and agreements. If they agreed, they continued without issue. If they didn't, they were to close their accounts. But for users not in good standing (which PayPal calls "limited accounts") the option to close accounts are not available. I.e., PayPal does not allow one to close a limited account. How would a user who was not given the option to agree/disagree with the new terms go about terminating the account (business relationship)? There are more layers of context and background, but I wanted to boil down my questions to this for the time being.

The eBay user agreement contains this clause: In our sole discretion, we may assign this User Agreement, by providing notice of such assignment in accordance with the Notices Section. The current PayPal agreement says: You may not transfer or assign any rights or obligations you have under this Agreement without PayPal's prior written consent. PayPal reserves the right to transfer or assign this Agreement or any right or obligation under this Agreement at any time. It's a good bet that every user agreement you ever clicked on had a similar clause. What do these clauses mean? They mean that when eBay spins off a new company, they can assign their rights, and your duties, under the contract to the new company. Your assumption that a new user agreement is required is incorrect.

Do user agreements with a company carry on after corporate mergers or splits?

I wanted to ask in regards to the eBay/PayPal split about a month ago. Namely: Do the user agreements continue once the companies split? In my mind, because PayPal is splitting off into its own company and eBay is remaining as the same company: In order for a person to continue using PayPal, in effect he must agree to a new user agreement. New company, new rules and regulations. If so, how would this affect users who are not in good standing? With this said, After the split, users in good standing were asked if they agreed to the new terms and agreements. If they agreed, they continued without issue. If they didn't, they were to close their accounts. But for users not in good standing (which PayPal calls "limited accounts") the option to close accounts are not available. I.e., PayPal does not allow one to close a limited account. How would a user who was not given the option to agree/disagree with the new terms go about terminating the account (business relationship)? There are more layers of context and background, but I wanted to boil down my questions to this for the time being.

In the hypothetical: Assume the following: User U makes an agreement A with company C. C is later acquired by company D. Then: D inherits C's obligations to U under A because D is a successor to A. Unless that inheritance is specifically prohibited by A. Disclaimer: This analysis is not intended to apply to your or any specific case. I am not giving you legal advice so please do not follow it.

Does Pennsylvania have a mature minor doctrine?

I'm not trying to get medical care, I'm just curious. I was wondering if the state of Pennsylvania had what is known as a "Mature Minor Doctrine" which, if I understand correctly, would allow minors, in a limited set of circumstances, to consent to medical treatment in lieu of their parents if said minor could demonstrate a level of knowledge and maturity necessary to make such decision. I know that some other states have this statute in their medical codes, and it varies from state to state what the implementation of this law. If PA does have such a doctrine, what are its specifics (age, how maturity is determined, etc.) And if it falls under PA emancipation law (which to my knowledge is horrendously complected.)

PA is a state that has discussed the mature minor doctrine in Commonwealth v. Nixon , 61 A.2d 1151 (Pa. 2000), however, as you mention, the results are complicated. The following is not well-cited, but it should give you a lay of the land: Journal of Lancaster General Hospital (2009) You don't mention a particular area of medicine, but the mature minor doctrine is frequently associated with the controversy on underage reproductive behavior. So let me treat that briefly. The statute governing abortion is 18 Pa.C.S. § 3206 , which is about a quarter of the way down the link. The courts are beginning to get involved as well, and a recent "judicial bypass" case that dealt with parental consent is re Jane Doe , J-108-2010 (Pa. 2011).

Multiple deals in a row and reasonable expectation

I once heard that there is a certain level of reasonable expectation that is guaranteed by law when it comes to making multiple deals with others. For instance, is the following legal or illegal to do. Bill offered to Mow Janes lawn for $1, which is agreeable. Bill mows the lawn, and gives Jane a bill for $1. Jane happily pays. A week pasts, and Jane asks Bill to mow her lawn again. Bill mows the lawn again, and give Jane a bill for $2 Jane asks why $2 and not $1, like last week Bill says that he changed the price within the last week due to high demand of his services, and that is what he charges everyone now. I do not mind which country the law exists, or if it exists at all; I was told that this was illegal to do (anecdotally), and I just want to get a quick opinion (not used in any legal way, just to cure my curiosity) and see if they were telling the truth or not. Thanks!

Bill and Jane are free to enter into a contract where, among other things, each provides valuable consideration; in this case Bill provides valuable lawn mowing services and Jane provides valuable money. In week No 1 they have negotiated the terms and the contract is complete when Bill mows the lawn and Jane pays the money. If Bill turns up next week without Jane's instruction then there is no contract and Jane does not have to pay anything; I don't think this is what you are asking but I include it for completeness. If it is understood that this arrangement continue week after week then either there is an ongoing contract or, more likely, a series of independent contracts. If there is an ongoing contract, then it can be renegotiated but it cannot be changed unilaterally by Bill. That is, he cannot unilaterally increase the price to $2. If there is a series of contracts then the terms of each of those contracts will be the same based on the course of dealing . Basically, the parties have accepted over a long period of time that the rate for a mow is $1 and Bill would have to get Jane to accept the revised rate before he mows the lawn. For your example, Jane owes Bill $1 but if she wants him back next week she will have to agree to Bill's rate.

Multiple deals in a row and reasonable expectation

I once heard that there is a certain level of reasonable expectation that is guaranteed by law when it comes to making multiple deals with others. For instance, is the following legal or illegal to do. Bill offered to Mow Janes lawn for $1, which is agreeable. Bill mows the lawn, and gives Jane a bill for $1. Jane happily pays. A week pasts, and Jane asks Bill to mow her lawn again. Bill mows the lawn again, and give Jane a bill for $2 Jane asks why $2 and not $1, like last week Bill says that he changed the price within the last week due to high demand of his services, and that is what he charges everyone now. I do not mind which country the law exists, or if it exists at all; I was told that this was illegal to do (anecdotally), and I just want to get a quick opinion (not used in any legal way, just to cure my curiosity) and see if they were telling the truth or not. Thanks!

I think your friend is correct. I think Jane has a good case that she only owes $1. If Bill and Jane did not reach a separate agreement before Bill mowed the lawn a second time then Jill has a " reasonable expectation " that the price would be $1 because that was the price the week before. The fact that the price was not stated or renegotiated between the first and the second mowing creates an implied understanding that the first price is still valid.

Is a landlord required to disclose a balloon payment?

Suppose a house was rented two years ago in California, on a two year lease. If when the lease expired, the landlord refuses to renew, citing an upcoming balloon payment that would not be covered by the rent as the reason, what recourse does the tenant have?

If the lease has expired and the tenant does not have an option then the landlord is under no obligation to offer a new lease; they do not have to give any reason. They would still need to comply with the notice periods in the lease or it will revert to a month-by-month contract; in that case, the notice period is 1 month.

Using (presumably) copyrighted materials in reviews

I run a film and TV show reviewing blog using the Google Blogger service. On this blog, I frequently use pictures taken from the film/episode/TV show that I am reviewing in the article. The pictures that I use are always gathered by simply using the Google Image search to find a picture that suits my need. As such, the pictures come from a large variety of sources, including others peoples reviews, promotional material and even frames from advertisements. Is the use of these images on my blog protected under Fair Use, regardless of the source of the original images? What about if I started earning money from my blog?

The UK copyright Act has the concept of "fair dealing" which is more restricted that the US concept of "fair use". For your purposes, Section 30 appears to be applicable: 30 Criticism, review and news reporting. (1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement and provided that the work has been made available to the public. (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) a work has been made available to the public if it has been made available by any means, including— (a) the issue of copies to the public; (b) making the work available by means of an electronic retrieval system; (c) the rental or lending of copies of the work to the public; (d) the performance, exhibition, playing or showing of the work in public; (e) the communication to the public of the work, but in determining generally for the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act. For your reviews, you would need to properly attribute the source of the image that you were using and that source must be legitimate. If you can't find a clear legal pathway from the image you have to the actual copyright holder you could be in trouble (e.g. an image from someone else's blog where that image may have been uploaded illegally). Your best bet is to go to the studio concerned and use images from their official public releases with proper attribution.

Copyright on Developer's Website

I've been trying to find concrete information about developer's copyright. If a developer has its own website (in terms of business [card]) and the projects that are part of the portfolio were projects created and sold by a company, does the developer have some sort of rights to the work? After all, even though the client payed, the designer designed it and sales brought the project to the company, the programmer made it «tangible». What rights should and should not be attributed to the developer? Is it okay to use this projects as part of the developer's portfolio?

The fact that a developer is showing off work that he/she has done for other another company doesn't imply that that developer owns any copyright to the work. In Canada, see the Copyright Act , § 13 (3): Where the author of a work was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright and § 13 (4): The owner of the copyright in any work may assign the right... In the US, see 17 U.S.C. § 201 (b): In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. and § 201 (d): The ownership of a copyright may be transferred... " What rights should and should not be attributed to the developer? " That is a business decision to be made on a case-by-case basis. Advice about the prudent balance of copyright between an employer/client and employee/contractor is legal advice. " Is it okay to use this projects as part of the developer's portfolio? " If the developer can link to public use of a product that he/she developed for a company, then the developer is not violating copyright by simply advertising that they worked on the product and linking to, without reproducing, the work. If the developer for whatever reason maintained copyright ownership in the code and other assets, it would not be copyright infringement to reproduce those as part of the portfolio. If the developer did not maintain copyright ownership in the code or assets, reproducing those may be copyright infringement, dependent on whether the copyright owner allowed the developer to reproduce those elements, or if the reproduction is fair use. There may be other laws or contracts implicated, though: non-disclosure agreements, trademark law, among others.

Are Captcha solver farms illegal?

Let say that captcha is a picture that prevents automated programs to do a certain task. Now imagine that we have a service in which some people works to solve some captchas. These captchas are sent by other people and/or by their program for the purpose that we don't know. People who work are get some money and who ask their captcha to be solved pay some funds. So by this way, not only the owner of the farm get some money but the solvers who might not have a real job get money too. So my question is this, are these farms illegal? (in USA, UK and Canada) of so which law they break?

This is a developing area within the law. In the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) governs. However, the law is broadly written. This means creative prosecutors can and do win federal criminal cases by arguing the law should apply. Whether violating a website's terms of service should be considered a federal crime subject to the Act has been a subject of hot debate. In United States v. Nosal , 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012), the 9th Circuit decided violations of use should be considered breaches rather than crimes. However, the district court refused to dismiss some charges against Nosal when the case was returned, and a jury conviction resulted in a prison sentence. At least three different circuits have arrived at other interpretations of the CFAA. Draft legislation (H.R. 2454 and S. 1196) would limit the scope of the CFAA by excluding TOS violations, however, it hasn't been adopted as of this writing. That CAPTCHA breaking violates website terms of service isn't really in question. For example, see U.S. v. Lowson , 10-cr-114, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark) in which the judge brought a criminal case to which two defendants plead guilty to wire fraud, one plead guilty to misdemeanor computer crimes, and a fourth went on the lam. But does for-profit CAPTCHA solving violate U.S. law? Given the state of the law, one could make a case either way. Given the industry's reputation, serious questions about intended use, and questionable labor practices, that's a significant risk.

What rights do children under the age of 18 have while living with their parents?

Do children have basic rights to Wi-Fi, food, and a bed?

See http://www.lawstuff.org.uk/the-facts/what-are-childrens-rights The relevant parts are: Wi-fi Freedom of expression and getting information: You must be able to get and share information with others, as long as this does not damage others (article 13). However, even in the UK, it is unlikely that Wi-Fi, the internet or a computer would be considered essential for this. If you can get a newspaper, reasonable access to a radio and have the ability to socialise then that would probably suffice. Food Health: You must also be able to get clean water, nutritious food and live in a healthy environment. Note that this does not require any specific foodstuffs or any drinks other than water. Bed Standard of living: You have the right to a standard of living that is necessary for your physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. This would include somewhere to sleep; in the UK this would probably be a bed.

What am I allowed to do according to Amazon TOS?

I found this on Amazon TOS : ... You may not incorporate any portion of the Amazon Software into your own programs or compile any portion of it in combination with your own programs .. Now I'm wondering what this company is doing or Google/Bing as well. There are plenty of companies who scrape data from Amazon, eBay, Etsy or news websites, Stack Overflow, etc. and do something with it (either republish or analyse or similar). So in the case of Amazon TOS: Would indix.com be doing something legal if they put the products data into their database? How about Google?

Data is not software. The prohibition you quote is against incorporating the programs, apps, web pages, etc., that Amazon has developed for running an internet store into one's own programs, apps, web pages, etc. The product listings themselves are not software. In addition, sites that redistribute Amazon data (that is, incorporate their product listings) are almost certainly not doing that under the terms of service that you link to. Those are the terms of service for customers, not business partners. There is either a standard redistribution agreement or a specific contract in place.

What's to stop a homeless person living in a church or a mosque?

Aren't churches and mosques basically public places of worship? Couldn't a homeless man just claim he is doing an extensive period of praying? Sorry if this question sounds ignorant or dumb. I'm just curious.

In many countries (for instance, the US), churches and mosques are private property. In general, the owner of private property can throw anyone off their property; claiming you're doing an extensive period of praying doesn't matter, because they are under no obligation to let people stay as long as needed to pray (they can kick someone off the property for just about any reason). If there's a contract in play things are different, but contracts aren't in play in this situation. That said, nothing stops the church or mosque from letting the homeless stay there; this is actually not that uncommon (charity being a fairly common religious virtue).

Does the term "commercial" exclude nonprofit?

The terms and conditions for the use of Getty images allows the free use of embedded images legally. As it says at the web site ( http://www.gettyimages.com/embed ) "Share more than 50 million images. It's easy, legal and free." However the terms and conditions page says this: Content may not be used: (a) for any commercial purpose (for example, in advertising, promotions or merchandising) So my question is this: If a church, a bona fide 501c3, is having a food festival, and the church's web site is used to publicize (one might say advertise the event) may the Getty content be properly used according to these terms? To put it another way, the imagery will be used in advertising, but the purpose is not commercial. The terms and conditions seems to assume that all advertising is commercial. Can I ignore their error, if it is one? To be clear: The church will charge money for food and use the resulting revenue to offset its operating expenses. Thanks

No Commercial use is interpreted broadly - anything that is or may lead to (e.g. advertising, pro-bono work etc.) income generation is commercial use. See http://www.thehelpful.com/creativecommons/what-is-commercial-use.html for EU information. This follows from the relevant definition of commerce as "the activity embracing all forms of the purchase and sale of goods and services" Your proposed use is definitely 100% commercial use. You should: Approach the publisher and ask permission, Use images you own or have a clear licence for, Use public domain images.

Why does this mention the U.S.?

There's a company near where I live called House of Air; it's a trampolining thing so, naturally, it has a waiver which explains as specifically as possible the many and varied ways you could accidentally die / become completely paralyzed. Naturally, it makes for light and fun reading. Most of it makes perfect sense, until this part (emphasis mine): Waiver of Liability for Ordinary Negligence of House of Air In consideration of permission to use the property, facilities, equipment, and services of House of Air, today and on all future dates, I (on behalf of myself, my child or ward, my spouse, heirs, personal representatives, my estate, my parents and assigns – referred to hereafter as “RELEASING PARTIES”) do hereby waive, release, discharge and covenant not to sue House of Air, LLC, the United States of America , and The Presidio Trust, and their respective owners, directors, officers, employees, volunteers, independent contractors, agents, affiliates, successors, assigns, and equipment suppliers — referred to hereafter as “PROTECTED PARTIES”) from liability from any and all claims arising from the use of the House of Air facilities including any injury resulting from the ordinary negligence of the PROTECTED PARTIES. I should specify- I'm in the U.S., so I'm guessing that has something to do with why that's in there. But still, why on earth is it specifying that I can't sue my country? I haven't read all that many waivers of liability, but nonetheless this isn't the first one I've read, and I've never seen that particular clause before. I am somewhat nonplussed.

House of Air is located in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, in land owned by the US government and managed by the Presidio Trust (a corporation wholly owned by the US government). As the US government owns the land, and a government-owned corporation leased it to House of Air, House of Air's waiver indemnifies them. It looks odd, but it's just because the US government happens to be House of Air's landlord, and House of Air is indemnifying their landlord.

Copyright implications for developing/marketing a 3rd party accessory?

If Chinese company ABC has an established brand for their product, "The Widget", and American company XYZ makes an add-on or modification for that product and sells said add-on as "The Widget Improver", with or without reference to ABC, is there copyright implications? I felt XYZ was enhancing and benefiting ABC, but someone today suggested I may have a problem as the name insinuates "The Widget" is inferior as-is, and also copyright infringement since "The Widget" is in XYZ's product name and, specifically, because XYZ's product specifically functions due to the "The Widget" being in the marketplace. I could use specific names and examples but I wasn't sure what is expected on this site. I found this article , which sort of addresses my question and suggests that a license agreement is necessary. But is it really necessary, or only necessary from ABC's (and that author's) point of view?

You generally can't protect a product name by copyright in the US (which is the jurisdiction that matters for the American company, assuming they're selling their product in the US). See Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases (by the United States Copyright Office): Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright

It is considered fraud to register a business just to get store discounts / benefits?

I went to this store where in order to buy merchandise, I need to have a membership card from them, but in order to get the membership card, I need to own a business. I found that some of the things that they sell are very cheap, so if I am able to get the membership card, I might be able to save a lot in groceries. But here is the thing: I do not own a business. I was wondering, it is illegal/fraudulent to register a new business, just to be able to get the membership card from the store? Assume that the business will not offer any services and will not sell anything (which I do not know if this is possible at all). It will solely exists to get the membership card from this store, and to get other business discounts.

It seems unlikely, though I am not licensed to practice law in the United States and you should consult an attorney who is licensed in the relevant jurisdiction for legal advice. Generally, to prove fraud, there must (among other elements) be a false representation of a material fact. Assuming that you have formed a business in accordance with the relevant laws, there is a business that you own. This satisfies the criterion that you have specified, i.e. that to get a membership card, you need to own a business. You have not falsely represented a fact about the business so far, since it exists in accordance with the law. There is no requirement in any jurisdiction which I am familiar with where a entity must engage in a certain level of trade to be considered a business. This doesn't necessarily mean that you're good to go. This store may, as a condition of its membership, require that the business engage in a certain level of trade to be eligible for a membership card. If this is the case, and you obtain a membership card even though your business does not meet this level, then fraud may have occurred. Finally, I should point out that incorporating a company does generally cost money, and the expected savings may not necessarily be worth it.

Doctor sending private information over whatsup for consultation

If a doctor sends screen grabs, taken by his smartphone, of different patients' confidential health files to other doctors for quick consultation, does that potentially violate any law? Could that be considered professional misconduct (and thus imperil his license to practice medicine)?

Health care providers in the US may send protected patient records to other health care providers for the purposes of treatment, either of the patient whose information it was or of a different patient (for instance, a doctor could send a chart of a different patient with a similar issue). This can be done without patient authorization, except for two cases: if the patient has requested more restrictions on use of their information and the provider agreed to those restrictions , and with psychotherapy notes. Source: HHS . WhatsApp specifically does not appear to be compliant with HIPAA, which is the US medical privacy law. However, there are many similar systems that are compliant. The body of your question asks about taking a smartphone screenshot; with many secure messaging systems, this is perfectly acceptable, and the principle of a doctor consulting with another doctor about a patient is actually encouraged. HIPAA violations do not by themselves result in any action against a medical license, nor can anyone besides the US government file suit based on a violation (everyone else is limited to complaining to the US government). Private lawsuits and (especially) license consequences are determined by state law, and are state- and situation-dependent. A doctor who calls a press conference to announce that this patient of his has HIV is more likely to face sanctions than a doctor whose violation was just not using a secure enough messaging client. HIPAA violations like this are not that uncommon, and generally result in at most a fine against the practice.

Open Source Software and Legal Responsibility for Software Content

I'm working with a few folks on updating some serious software for mechanism design. Engineered mechanisms have existed in the world now for a few hundred years or so. The science here isn't really new. We're debating bringing out some software for mechanism design and synthesis. We are using really smart algorithms based on physics in the natural world. No magic, just brilliant use working with the existing laws of nature. One of our concerns is the potential for lawsuits by users of the software. We're not sure if we should share our algorithms openly or if we should seek to profit from them. For example: Joe Cheap Carnival company invents a new wild ride using our awesome cool mechanism synthesis software. They have Podunk Assembly Company manufacture it with cheapest materials possible with really poor quality control. The ride goes up at a local carnival and oops it fails, and someone gets seriously hurt. Here are my questions: If our software was used by Joe Cheap Carnival's design team to synthesize a mechanism used in the faulty carnival ride, and our software encompassed the use hidden and encoded algorithms, could we be held liable for the failure? If our software was absolutely open source (github), with all algorithms and logic flow in full public view, could we be sued? (Does this change the nature of "responsibility"? ) My questions relates to: Can the open source process be used as a legal protection against a potential lawsuit for a software company? Update (post DaleM response): I'm not sure I fully understand the "duty of care" description. We make software that tells engineers how machines move. Its a similar function to what you might read in an academic text, albeit in a much easier intuitive form to use. (Drag and drop is much easier than reading a chapter of text then doing mathematical problems, even though exactly the same concepts are being used.) The function of our code is to accurately represent the laws of physics. We don't tell somebody what to design, we tell them if you want this particular output, here are a variety of ways to achieve that output. Hmmm... Lets say someone wants to design a six bar mechanism to move an object in a 720 degree circle and deliver it as fast as possible we can help with that. Fancy Machine works uses that model to deliver bolts to an assembly line for rapid manufacturing. Max g forces observed on the bolt is 8 G's. Joe's Cheap Carnival decides to use that exact same mechanism to create an exciting ride for its customers. Its ten times the scale of the bolt delivery machine, but its the same basic mechanism design. Again, Max g forces observed on the customer sitting in the ride is 8 G's. Is our design unsafe? The bolts seem to get there just fine, people, no so much. We profess no responsibility (same as an academic text book author on mechanism design.) In fact that might be a better question. Have any academic folks been sued for academic publications providing "how-to" instructions? If Joes Cheap Carnival team designs a unsafe ride with a mechanism design textbook as a reference, can the university who published that textbook be held liable? Apologies if I'm not using the correct language in the legal arena. And many thanks to you for your responses.

Sources of Liability Liability can come from: Statute law Contract law Common law Statute Law There may be (almost certainly are) laws in the jurisdiction where Joes Cheap Carnival are operating relating to Work Health and Safety. In general, these laws will impose a non-delegable duty (i.e. one you cant get out of) to comply with certain minimum standards. If operating your software as instructed with reasonable assumptions gives results that lead to an unsafe design then you would be liable in both cases. Contract Law If you are selling this software then you can limit your liability in any way you like providing that the limitation is not unlawful. For example, under Australian Consumer Law (which covers B2B transactions up to AUD$40,000 - how much are you selling for?) you have a non-excludable warranty that the software is fit-for-purpose; so, again, if operating your software as instructed with reasonable assumptions gives results that lead to an unsafe design then you would be liable in both cases. Common Law Only parties to a contract can take action under a contract; anyone you owe a duty of care to can sue your for negligence. A person injured by a machine your software helped design need to demonstrate: You had a duty of care; it would be hard to argue you didn't, You breached that duty; the software was not "fit-for-purpose", There was a factual cause in a "cause and effect" sense; 'but for' your software there would have been no loss, There was a legal (proximate) cause; you may be able to raise something here, if your software was used incorrectly by an engineer, your breach may be too distant Harm; the person must suffer real loss. The only plausible advantage of making your software open source is that you are showing a greater amount of care by allowing your algorithms to be sort-of peer reviewed. This is not a legal shield I would really like to depend on. TL;DR Nothing can stop someone suing you - if they want to sue you they can sue you. Your best defence to a lawsuit is to demonstrate that you did everything a reasonable person could do without the benefit of hindsight Do you really think publishing your code is "everything a reasonable person could do"? You would be far better off: Taking out professional indemnity insurance Validating you algorithms thoroughly Engaging an independent third-party to validate your algorithms Developing proper and thorough testing procedure for your software Testing it in-house Engaging an independent third-party to test it Thoroughly documenting your software including all the assumptions along with the domains where they are valid and invalid.

Open Source Software and Legal Responsibility for Software Content

I'm working with a few folks on updating some serious software for mechanism design. Engineered mechanisms have existed in the world now for a few hundred years or so. The science here isn't really new. We're debating bringing out some software for mechanism design and synthesis. We are using really smart algorithms based on physics in the natural world. No magic, just brilliant use working with the existing laws of nature. One of our concerns is the potential for lawsuits by users of the software. We're not sure if we should share our algorithms openly or if we should seek to profit from them. For example: Joe Cheap Carnival company invents a new wild ride using our awesome cool mechanism synthesis software. They have Podunk Assembly Company manufacture it with cheapest materials possible with really poor quality control. The ride goes up at a local carnival and oops it fails, and someone gets seriously hurt. Here are my questions: If our software was used by Joe Cheap Carnival's design team to synthesize a mechanism used in the faulty carnival ride, and our software encompassed the use hidden and encoded algorithms, could we be held liable for the failure? If our software was absolutely open source (github), with all algorithms and logic flow in full public view, could we be sued? (Does this change the nature of "responsibility"? ) My questions relates to: Can the open source process be used as a legal protection against a potential lawsuit for a software company? Update (post DaleM response): I'm not sure I fully understand the "duty of care" description. We make software that tells engineers how machines move. Its a similar function to what you might read in an academic text, albeit in a much easier intuitive form to use. (Drag and drop is much easier than reading a chapter of text then doing mathematical problems, even though exactly the same concepts are being used.) The function of our code is to accurately represent the laws of physics. We don't tell somebody what to design, we tell them if you want this particular output, here are a variety of ways to achieve that output. Hmmm... Lets say someone wants to design a six bar mechanism to move an object in a 720 degree circle and deliver it as fast as possible we can help with that. Fancy Machine works uses that model to deliver bolts to an assembly line for rapid manufacturing. Max g forces observed on the bolt is 8 G's. Joe's Cheap Carnival decides to use that exact same mechanism to create an exciting ride for its customers. Its ten times the scale of the bolt delivery machine, but its the same basic mechanism design. Again, Max g forces observed on the customer sitting in the ride is 8 G's. Is our design unsafe? The bolts seem to get there just fine, people, no so much. We profess no responsibility (same as an academic text book author on mechanism design.) In fact that might be a better question. Have any academic folks been sued for academic publications providing "how-to" instructions? If Joes Cheap Carnival team designs a unsafe ride with a mechanism design textbook as a reference, can the university who published that textbook be held liable? Apologies if I'm not using the correct language in the legal arena. And many thanks to you for your responses.

The best answer for the whole solution (not only code) is: it strictly depends on country . As for strictly the software, it's easy to drop any potential responsibility. Look at the MIT license: The software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement. In no event shall the authors or copyright holders be liable for any claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract, tort or otherwise, arising from, out of or in connection with the software or the use or other dealings in the software. In most countries this is completely enough, if your code is freely available (even if it's intentionally stripped out of comments and documentation) and equipped with a full license text + license headers in individual source files. Of course in case of any potential lawsuit you have to prove, that your software has been provided with such licence clauses. But it's fairly easy, if it's really open source (eg. published on GitHub). On the other hand, nobody reasonable will take a risk of using such code, when there are "natural" risks related to it. And here's the catch. So, while it's easy to drop responsibility at the "code layer", it's more complicated to do so at the "full solution layer". As for full solution, I will try to propose a solution based on Polish law. As I wrote above: the solution will vary between countries nobody reasonable will use your code will such license and "natural" risks So what you have to do, is to register a "proxy" limited liability company with very low capital, that will use your open source code, and will sell some IT services to another, "real" company. The agreement between "real" and "proxy" company should clearly address all possible responsibility related to these IT services to "proxy" company. This way, if something happens, you just liquidate the "proxy" company, fix bugs in the code, start another "proxy" company and continue operating. Remember, that you should find a good layer to consult exact details of such agreement, because it's the core source of the differences between countries.

What jurisdictions could a crime committed in an internet chat room fall under?

This arose from an actual conversation in chat. The question was originally posed by Doorknob. Let's say that someone denied the Holocaust in a message posted in a Stack Exchange chat room. This is a crime in many countries. What jurisdiction(s) could prosecute the offender, given that users from many different countries - some with the law, some without - might be in the room? Would it be the jurisdiction where the servers are? Could the jurisdiction of the IP address of the person who committed the crime prosecute?

Generalising outrageously: A state (interpreted broadly as an entity with a functioning judicial system; could be a nation or a state or something else) claims jurisdiction for: Acts committed by its citizens, Acts committed within its territory. Certain acts committed against its citizens. Exceptionally egregious crimes with an international character (e.g. piracy, genocide) For your particular example, a state may try to prosecute and its courts might rule that they have jurisdiction if: The perpetrator were a citizen, and/or The act was committed on their territory, and/or A citizen is considered to have been a victim of the act. As this is a matter of jurisdiction only we don't have to worry about things like if such a prosecution is realistic or a conviction is likely; a court would need to be satisfied that it had jurisdiction before it made such a decision anyway. This also lets us avoid the question of if such a statement in a chatroom that requires membership of this site is sufficiently public to offend the law; as far as I am aware most of these laws require public expression. So brushing over all of that then a state in which the statement was published could claim jurisdiction; that would be any state with a sufficiently advanced internet connection that the offending statement could be accessed i.e. pretty much any state that wanted to have a go.

Temporarily Relocating Car from California to Massachusetts

I am being temporarily (6 months) relocated to Boston, MA and will be taking my car from California to Massachusetts. My car (and myself) will remain registered at my home address in California. My question is, does Massachusetts require one to register a car for a temporary (6 months or less) relocation?

The only requirement is that vehicles on public roads be registered in a state. The rules and requirements for registration vary by state. Suffice it to say that if you can legally keep it registered in any state you do not have to change the registration based on where you live or operate it. Residency is often a requirement of registration, so if your are not a legal resident of the state of registration you may not be allowed to keep it registered in that state. You may also be required to change registration due to insurance. For example, in some circumstances an old insurer won't be able to sell you insurance if the car is relocated to another state for an extended period, in which case the requirement to have the vehicle insured could effectively force a change in registration. Amendment: Nate Eldredge points out in the comments that some states do require residents to register their cars in state. I expect this is more common in states that derive significant revenue from vehicle registration, and that enforcement would be commensurate with the size of that tax.

Do corporations have equal rights with natural persons to carpool on California freeways?

Articles on SFGATE from 2013 and Wikipedia: Jonathan Frieman describe the legal efforts of Johnathan Frieman of San Rafael, CA in creating an odd test case for corporate personhood. Frieman argues that if corporate personhood is valid, and corporations have legal rights of people as evidenced by e.g., the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that a corporation's constitutional rights as a person, specifically their rights under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, barred the government from limiting corporate donations to political campaigns, then corporations should have a right to join a carpool and thereby enable a vehicle to legally occupy the carpool lane. This may also be some kind of test case / legal protest of corporate person as the article suggests he would also be OK with a ruling that corporations aren't really people after all. Ford Greene, Frieman's attorney, pointed to California vehicle code section 470, which says the definition of a person includes "natural persons and corporations." The signs on the freeways ask carpoolers to carry "2 or more persons" which, Greene said, "is constitutionally vague." The CVC online shows: "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation. but this is a general definition and I would expect the part of the CVC that discusses the HOV lanes to have its own definition or terminology for a person, or perhaps an occupant, etc... The traffic court judge ruled against Frieman, citing the purpose of the carpool lane as defined in the code is to reduce traffic congestion: "Common sense says carrying a sheath of papers in the front seat does not relieve traffic congestion ... And so I'm finding you guilty." But Frieman plans an appeal... Outside the courtroom, Frieman said he would appeal the ruling within 30 days. "I expected to lose," Frieman said. "And I expected the judge to cite the reasons he did." Questions: has there been an appeal of this case in California? if not, does Frieman have a case or is this purely frivolous nonsense? Information on similar cases is welcome.

This is an amusing idea, but ultimately it seems frivolous: How does one establish the physical presence of a corporation in a car? Yes, corporations have some of the legal rights and liabilities of people, but they are not people. And there are plenty of rights a person has that a corporation does not. For example (at present) a corporation can't be a party to a marriage. The closest a corporation comes to any corporal presence is the address listed of their agents.

Apple AppStore app rejection and Freedom of speech/press

My question relates to one Apple App Store guideline: Referencing third-party platforms in your app or its metadata is not appropriate on the App Store. I understand this to mean that it is prohibited to show any information about other platforms in the application. So, the developer is prohibited from mentioning such words as "Android, Windows, Linux, BlackBerry OS, Web OS" and many others. I am developing a technology news application that aims to include news about other platforms on the market. Per this guideline I am allowed to show only Apple-related news in the app. The app has been rejected. How does this rejection relate to the freedom of speech and press, which is present in many countries' laws as a basic human right. Can it be considered as a censorship? Or if Apple owns the platform, it can dictate any rules and I have to obey them as a developer?

Taking the US as an example, the Constitution states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Congress or a state government hasn't prohibited you from comparing platforms. Another private entity has. And, that's fine. You're free to launch the app as a separate website, or print out the flyers and hand them to people on the bus, or publish your own monthly magazine comparing various platforms, so you still have freedom of speech and of the press. As an example, if you write a letter about how great the government of North Korea is to the letters department at Stamp Collectors Magazine, and they don't publish it, have they violated your human rights? The app store restriction may be quite dumb. After all, the built-in web browser allows the reading of the exact same news. But there's no law against being dumb.

What is the latest that one can enter into a right/left-only lane in order to make a turn at the intersection in NYC?

Busy streets lanes near an intersection sometimes have arrow markings such as "straight only", and "right/left only": If you are on the "straight only" lane, when is the latest that you may enter into the "right/left only lane" before coming close to the intersection in New York City? If you had entered into the lane too late and gotten a ticket (1163a vtl for an "Improper Turn"), what defense could you use at a court to lessen your judgement?

The statute doesn't say much in detail (from the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (unfortunately, the site works on javascript, so, you have to navigate by opening the "Laws" menu and then making your way from there): § 1128. Driving on roadways laned for traffic. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply: (a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety. (b and c are not relevant) (d) When official markings are in place indicating those portions of any roadway where crossing such markings would be especially hazardous, no driver of a vehicle proceeding along such highway shall at any time drive across such markings. The last bit, (d), is of interest. Basically, you are allowed to change into the correct lane as long as the pavement markings permit it. The pavement markings at an intersection with a sign like the one you posted are generally solid white lines. These details are governed by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices , published by the Federal Highway Administration. Their information on pavement markings is available both in PDF and HTML format . Pertinently, it says: A double white line indicates that lane changes are prohibited. A single white line indicates that lane changes are discouraged. A dashed white line indicates that lane changes are allowed. Therefore, if the lines separating the lanes are, as usual, solid white lines, you are encouraged to get into the correct lane before the beginning of the solid white line, but you are permitted to change lanes across the solid lines. An example of such marking is in the right-hand example in the given image: One point of possible contention is that the New York State Driver's Manual describes the meaning of the solid white line somewhat differently: One solid line: You can pass other vehicles or change lanes, but you can only do so when obstructions in the road or traffic conditions make it necessary. I don't see any statutory basis for that description, but I may well have overlooked something. I suppose you know where the signs are specified, since you probably got the image from there, but for anyone reading this who does not know, they are specified in the publication Standard Highway Signs . This is available as a set of PDF files; the relevant file is the one containing regulatory signs ; the sign in the question is 1-33, and it is in the midst of several similar signs. If a police officer ticketed you for getting into the lane too late, I suppose you should find a lawyer who specializes in fighting traffic tickets, and ask whether there really is such a thing as "too late." By my reading of the law, there isn't. (Of course, if it's dangerous to change lanes because of other vehicles, you shouldn't change lanes, but if you had, I would suppose the officer should have written a ticket for some other violation, like reckless driving.)

How to find record of conviction?

My mother was convicted of something nearly 20 years ago in the UK, but since it was not worthy of prison forgot about the details soon after. I need to know about it in order to fully disclose information about everyone living in my house for an application I am making, but I don't know how to find out about details about this conviction. Is there an easy way to find out about someone's (or in this case, one's own) convictions?

If the offence was minor than it may be considered 'spent' under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 . A conviction resulting only in a fine is usually spent after five years. Spent convictions do not normally need to be disclosed, but you should check this with whoever is asking for the information. Your mother can apply for a copy of her own criminal record by asking Disclosure Scotland for a basic disclosure; this costs £25 and takes around two weeks if the application is made online. Due to a quirk in the Disclosure and Barring Service, this is the only way a person can apply for their own disclosure certificate. Anyone in the UK can apply to Disclosure Scotland, even if they do not live in Scotland.

Without sub judice rules, as exist in almost every other English-speaking jurisdiction, how can due process be assured?

I have watched the media circus surrounding the arrest of a 21-year-old male on suspicion of having murdered nine people in Charleston. Vast amounts of information are spewing forth from the news media, some of which will undoubtedly be true, some of which will have been entirely made up by newspapers to sell copy, and the rest of which will be somewhere in between. How is it possible without rules of contempt to ensure that due process is unfettered? How can a jury be impaneled that has not already read so much about the case that they have preconceived ideas as to guilt or innocence? In the early stages of the search police officials declared it was a hate crime . How exactly did they know this? And couldn't its widespread circulation affect the outcome of the case?

The United States gives the accused the right to a fair trial. However, it also gives exceptionally strong protection to the media (and to people in general) to speak on matters of public concern; there are very, very few cases where a US government (federal, state, or local) can legally order someone not to publish something (as opposed to letting it be published and then issuing sanctions). The rule of thumb for content-based restrictions on speech is that they must be the least restrictive way of achieving a compelling government interest. For trials, there are other ways to achieve a fair trial without restricting the press. One of the most preferred ways to do it is to use the voir dire process, in which jurors can be rejected for prejudice. Courts can also move the trial to a new location; they can grant motions from the defense to delay the trial while things cool down; they can sequester the jurors (meaning that the jurors are kept in a central place and prevented from talking to anyone else or reading anything about the case); if none of these are done, a conviction can potentially be reversed on appeal. US courts will, wherever possible, modify the trial to mitigate the damage done by the press, rather than restrict the press to mitigate the damage to the trial. For a review of a few different approaches to this in different jurisdictions, you might want to look at this law journal article .

Which state has jurisdiction in a case of a murder in an airplane?

A murder happened in an airplane flying from country A to country B when crossing above country C. Who will have jurisdiction? Bonus question: What if countries A, B and C are members of the European Union?

It depends. International aviation law is tricky. One effort to set some standards down was the Tokyo Convention , also known as the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft . Here are some excerpts: ARTICLE 3 The State of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jurisdiction over offences and acts committed on board. . . . ARTICLE 4 A Contracting State which is not the State of registration may not interfere with an aircraft in flight in order to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over an offence committed on board except in the following cases: a) the offence has effect on the territory of such State; b) the offence has been committed by or against a national or permanent resident of such State; c) the offence is against the security of such State; d) the offence consists of a breach of any rules or regulations relating to the flight or manoeuvre of aircraft in force in such State; e) the exercise of jurisdiction is necessary to ensure the observance of any obligation of such State under a multilateral international agreement. The commander of the aircraft is also given some powers to restrain the perpetrator or any other person that poses a danger to the aircraft and/or its occupants. S/he is given some other options, such as the choice of where to deliver the offender (though this by no means implies that the person will be prosecuted by that State). The Convention (and related documents) was ratified by numerous nations . As for the bonus question, there doesn't appear to be any special EU law regarding this. The EASA does not cover these sort of offenses , though it would be the closest to a Europe-wide regulatory body that would be relevant here.

Which state has jurisdiction in a case of a murder in an airplane?

A murder happened in an airplane flying from country A to country B when crossing above country C. Who will have jurisdiction? Bonus question: What if countries A, B and C are members of the European Union?

Whether a state has jurisdiction over a crime or not is determined exclusively by the laws of that state, including any treaties the state has signed. It is entirely possible for multiple countries to have jurisdiction over a crime; this is likely to be just such a situation. As a practical matter, if there is a murder on an airplane the plane will be making an emergency landing at the nearest airport (or nearest friendly airport, if, say, the pilot finds himself over a war zone) and will be met by local police (because they're the police who are actually around), who will take the suspect into custody. From there, the legal procedures kick in -- either the suspect will be locally charged, he will be set free, or he will be extradited. The Tokyo Convention does not actually preclude country C from bringing charges. It bans interfering with the aircraft in flight; the country can't automatically order the plane to the ground, although they can do so if they think it's a security risk (e.g. terrorist risk). However, article 3 paragraph 3 explicitly says that the convention's grant of jurisdiction to the country of registration is not exclusive; it specifically does not forbid national legislation from establishing jurisdiction over foreign-registered aircraft. If country C is the US, they have authority to charge the suspect with murder: 49 USC 46501(2)(C) defines the "special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States" to include aircraft in flight in the United States, and 49 USC 46506(1) says that violation of several federal criminal laws (including 18 USC 1111, the federal murder law) in that jurisdiction is punishable as a federal crime. If country C is the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service states that UK law gives jurisdiction over offenses committed on aircraft in flight over the UK. Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2012 states that this is a common-law principle. No mention is made of any EU rules on the CPS page, although that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any. If the aircraft in fact lands in country B, and country B is the US or UK, national law gives that country's courts jurisdiction. If the act endangers the plane or is part of a hijacking , both the country of registration and the country where the plane ultimately lands with the person on board have jurisdiction, regardless of where the incident happened (even if it was over international waters). Both of those treaties do not rule out any other country having jurisdiction either.

Setting up two corporations to split profits and reduce tax brackets

Let's say I am receiving income in a corp from multiple entities for consulting services and most of the money I make I keep in my company to potentially pay out dividends in future years. Would it make sense to split the income (and therefore the profits) between multiple corporations to keep in the lowest corporate tax brackets? Let's say I have a yearly profit of $120,000. If the current tax brackets for corps are as follows: Taxable income over Not over Tax rate $ 0 $ 50,000 15% 50,000 75,000 25% 75,000 100,000 34% 100,000 335,000 39% 335,000 10,000,000 34% 10,000,000 15,000,000 35% 15,000,000 18,333,333 38% 18,333,333 .......... 35% It seems I should set up 3 corporations, have my clients pay each of them about $40,000, and thus each corporation would only get taxed 15%. Thereby saving $12,000-$23,000 in taxes. I could easily imagine creating N number of corps and spreading profits between them all to have the lowest tax rate. This all seems pretty easy and obvious to me, yet I don't see any advice on the subject anywhere on the internet. Is this legal? Am I missing something fundamental? Because otherwise, it seems like a pretty huge tax loophole that I would imagine would be heavily abused.

I have extensive domain knowledge of your question. In short, your plan won't work. Here's why... Corporate Taxation and the double taxation problem Corporations are taxed in the U.S. as separate legal entities (unless they meet certain exceptions described below). Therefore, if your corporation does not avoid being taxed as a separate legal entity, your plan will fail due to the “double taxation” problem. I.e, Your corporation will be taxed first at the corporate level. Then after you pay the corporate tax, YOU WILL BE TAXED AGAIN as an individual, when you take the money out of the corporation via income or dividends. Or if you decide to leave the money in the corporation, there is an excess retained earnings penalty. Subchapter-S election and "flow-through" entities The way to avoid the double taxation problem is to make a "Subchapter-S election” for your corporation. This "S-election" will cause the corporation to be treated as a “flow through” entity for taxation purposes — allowing the owners to be taxed at the individual level only. The IRS imposes additional limitations and restrictions on these "S-corporations" and their ownership structures. Limiting things like the number of owners the corporation can have etc. The problem is that even with this subchapter S election, your concept still won’t work. This is because ALL your income will "flow through” all your corporations (via IRS Form K-1) and accrue to you at the individual level. Therefore, nullifying the “compartmentalization of income” effect you were trying to achieve. Conclusion In short, your plan won’t work. There are too many rules in place to effectively close the loophole you imagined might be. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or an accountant. This answer is not legal or accounting advice. Please consult the proper professionals for appropriate professional advice.

Setting up two corporations to split profits and reduce tax brackets

Let's say I am receiving income in a corp from multiple entities for consulting services and most of the money I make I keep in my company to potentially pay out dividends in future years. Would it make sense to split the income (and therefore the profits) between multiple corporations to keep in the lowest corporate tax brackets? Let's say I have a yearly profit of $120,000. If the current tax brackets for corps are as follows: Taxable income over Not over Tax rate $ 0 $ 50,000 15% 50,000 75,000 25% 75,000 100,000 34% 100,000 335,000 39% 335,000 10,000,000 34% 10,000,000 15,000,000 35% 15,000,000 18,333,333 38% 18,333,333 .......... 35% It seems I should set up 3 corporations, have my clients pay each of them about $40,000, and thus each corporation would only get taxed 15%. Thereby saving $12,000-$23,000 in taxes. I could easily imagine creating N number of corps and spreading profits between them all to have the lowest tax rate. This all seems pretty easy and obvious to me, yet I don't see any advice on the subject anywhere on the internet. Is this legal? Am I missing something fundamental? Because otherwise, it seems like a pretty huge tax loophole that I would imagine would be heavily abused.

Generally speaking, this is handled by the rules on " controlled groups ." See Revenue Code §1563(a) for "mechanical ownership tests, which are used in determining if a controlled group situation exists."

How should a contract for Agile software development differ from a contract for Waterfall software development?

All software development contracts I've seen specify that x piece of software will be developed for y dollars within z amount of time. This works out for traditional Waterfall model projects, where you do a lot of forward planning and it is reasonable to expect that you will know how long the project will take near the beginning of the project. It doesn't match up at all for Agile , where you can start without having any idea exactly where you will end up and you are expected to be able to deal with requirements changes. How would a contract for Agile software development differ from a contract for Waterfall software development? Is there a place where I can find a sample contract for Agile development?

Keep in mind that for a real project with real money on the line you should consult with a business lawyer who can tailor a form to the specifics of your project and team. That said, this is the first google result for 'Agile Software Contracting' (and there are many others): Agile Contracts Contracting for agile software development is fundamentally different from traditional project contracting. Using traditional contracts for an agile development project can endanger the project execution and causes the company to fail to get the potential benefits of agile development. The purpose of this page is to collect references to agile contracting to support organizations to change their contracting models, reduce risk and get more benefits out of adopting Agile development. THE AGILE CONTRACTS PRIMER (PDF)

How common is it for bills to be introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate?

Five bills are mentioned in this report . Two of them, H.R. 2422 and S. 829, are very similar and appear to be applicable to the same situations (though I can not find the full text of the latter), with the only difference being that the former was introduced in the House of Representatives, and the latter was introduced in the Senate. As of the report's publication, both were pending legislation in the 109 th Congress. Is it common for similar - if not identical - bills to be introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate at the same time? Why is this done?

The only legal requirement for bill origination is that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives . Otherwise, simultaneous origination is quite common. Differences are resolved through a process called "reconciliation" prior to passage.

Could a personal jetpack flight legally occur over Australian cities?

Have just been reading about the remarkable jetpack flight over Dubai, in the article Flying over Dubai — and other places — with jetpacks (a YouTube of the incredible flight is available on YouTube ). My question is, what is the law regarding a similar flight over an Australian city? (for example, flying over the Sydney Harbour Bridge and around the Centrepoint Tower)

Assuming that the aircraft is allowed to operate in Australia, that the pilot was licensed, communications were to spec etc. then the answer is given in designated Airspaces handbook . Without going into details the airspace above Sydney is controlled and permission from Airservices Australia would be needed.

What is the difference between "murder", "manslaughter" and "homicide"?

Do "murder", "manslaughter" and "homicide" have different legal definitions? Or are they just terms referring to the same act used in different jurisdictions?

The answer is going to depend on what jurisdiction you're talking about. But I can give you some general principles that apply, in most cases, in the U.S. at least. "Homicide" is a general term for the killing of one person by another. If someone died, and another person caused it, it's homicide. "Murder" and "manslaughter" are specific crimes, usually now defined by state criminal statutes. The specifics are going to differ from state to state, but in general, murder is the more serious crime and carries a more serious punishment. So if a person dies at another person's hand, it is a homicide, and it may also be murder or manslaughter. The way the law distinguishes between murder and manslaughter usually has to do with the killer's mental state. For example, a state with three homicide offenses might break them down like this: Murder: "I killed him because I wanted to steal his wallet." Voluntary manslaughter: "I killed him because I just found out he was sleeping with my wife." Involuntary manslaughter/negligent homicide: "I didn't mean to kill him, but I was drunk and didn't see the stop sign." These homicide offenses will then be further subdivided into degrees based on aggravating or mitigating factors. For instance, in some states there is a very limited definition for first degree murder, which may be the only offense that allows the death penalty (example: murder of a police officer, murder while serving a life sentence).

What is the difference between "murder", "manslaughter" and "homicide"?

Do "murder", "manslaughter" and "homicide" have different legal definitions? Or are they just terms referring to the same act used in different jurisdictions?

Murder is intentional and premeditated killing. Manslaughter is also criminal killing but is not murder, because it is not premeditated e.g. someone comes home and discovers the spouse in bed with someone else, and "kills." That's voluntary manslaughter. Homicide is killing, criminal or not, so "self defense" or accidental killing is homicide. All murder and manslaughter is homicide, but not all homicide is manslaughter or murder. There's another category of involuntary manslaughter. Example: You are driving in a residential neighborhood at a "safe" speed of 10 mph. A small child rushes under your car, you can't swerve, and kill the child. That's accidental killing, not "manslaughter." Example: You are driving in the same neighborhood at 30 mph. That's well above the 15 mph considered "safe." If you hit a child, you will now be charged with criminal involuntary manslaughter, or homicide, because of your "reckless disregard" for safety. Example: You are driving at 10 mph, but are DUI, which slows your reflexes. If you now hit a child while under the influence of alcohol, that's criminal involuntary manslaughter.

Something Less than an Injunction

Injunctions (judicial orders that prevent a party from beginning or continuing an action that infringes on the rights of another) in the U.S. are typically either permanent or preliminary--the distinction being that the former is a post-trial object. Preliminary injunctions frequently have requirements (undue hardship, irreparable injury, etc.) similar to that of permanent injunctions and are often given for the express purpose of maintaining the status quo prior to an eventual trial. Many small claims courts do not make equitable remedies available, including injunctions. My question is structural: when the eventual damage is predicted to be small, what preventive recourse is available to stop a party from beginning an infringement? Made-up examples: Party A to a commonly held driveway intends to tear up a portion of the pavement to create additional parking for A's exclusive use despite lack of consent from other owners Party A to a commonly held pavilion improves the property by enclosing it without consent of the other owners and then bills all owners

Many states deal with trespass as an issue you can get an injunction for even if there is no damage to your property at all. For example, in Virginia, the circuit courts require a minimum of $4500 in damages if you are seeking money, but if you ask for an injunction to prevent repeated trespasses, they'll give it to you. I think the question mistakes slightly the difference between "law" and "equity" in American courts. Amounts of monetary damages are usually damages under law, and there would be requirements that a sufficiently small legal claim be brought in a small claims court that cannot issue an injunction. On the other hand, disrespect for property rights is typically an equitable claim, and can be heard by a court with injunction powers no matter how minimal the actual damage is.

Something Less than an Injunction

Injunctions (judicial orders that prevent a party from beginning or continuing an action that infringes on the rights of another) in the U.S. are typically either permanent or preliminary--the distinction being that the former is a post-trial object. Preliminary injunctions frequently have requirements (undue hardship, irreparable injury, etc.) similar to that of permanent injunctions and are often given for the express purpose of maintaining the status quo prior to an eventual trial. Many small claims courts do not make equitable remedies available, including injunctions. My question is structural: when the eventual damage is predicted to be small, what preventive recourse is available to stop a party from beginning an infringement? Made-up examples: Party A to a commonly held driveway intends to tear up a portion of the pavement to create additional parking for A's exclusive use despite lack of consent from other owners Party A to a commonly held pavilion improves the property by enclosing it without consent of the other owners and then bills all owners

Well, your examples are sort of edge cases. In most circumstances, there's scant reason to want to improve someone else's property in the first place. And just because a legal remedy might be expensive for the plaintiff to obtain does not mean that it's cheap for the defendant. Thus it still has deterrent value.

What constitutes legal malpractice? What are the remedies?

A friend of mine was doing business with Company A, and asked a lawyer to draft a contract saying that if Company A failed to perform, my friend would be able to take possession of Asset X (the critical asset), as an indemnity so that he could do the job himself. The lawyer drafted a contract with Asset Y (a totally different Asset) as indemnity. Further, he attached several Exhibits to the contract that don't clearly relate to either Asset X or Y, and only confuse the picture. Company A failed to perform, but won't hand over Asset X, and my friend doesn't have the indemnity that he envisioned because of the way the contract was drafted. (A first year law student could probably have done better.) That's the causation. The harm comes from the fact that my friend now has to sue Company A, which might not be necessary if the contract was solid. The breach of duty comes from the disregard of instructions to "securitize" Asset X. Does this constitute legal malpractice, and if so, what are the remedies? These questions relate to New York State.

Legal malpractice varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In many you'd need to show that there existed an: Attorney-client relationship Breach of duty Causation Harm This is a more in depth summary of each of the elements. Each jurisdiction is going to put tests in place to determine whether the elements are actually met. So your firend's locality matters a good deal. The ABA also has some aggregate statistics on the incidence of the various types of malpractice here . For example, it helps one to distinguish between clerical errors and failure to follow a client's instructions. Edit: for the state of NY (which applies the above rules), see: NY State Bar Assoc. Code of Professional Responsibility ABA Model Code

Is contributory "publication" a defense against libel?

Suppose there was a work of fiction where one of the characters was based on a real one. And suppose the real person sued the author and, through the process of discovery, found private emails, author's notes, etc., that confirm the claim. But suppose that nobody other than the author and the real person connected the fictional character to the real person prior to the lawsuit, and it was the lawsuit itself that drew attention to the connection in public. Subsequently, the real person suffered damages, but had suffered none before his lawsuit. Can the defendant then use a "contributory negligence" defense, arguing that the damage was realized due to the actions of the plaintiff? "Contributory" negligence or other contributions are a factor in other areas of the law. Is it a factor in libel?

A statement cannot be libel unless it actually identifies the plaintiff to defame him. The identification need not be by name, but it must be specific enough that the public would be able to determine who the statement referred to. You can read more about this concept at Prof. Eugene Volokh on Libel Law Therefore, if nobody other than the plaintiff or defendant learned about the connection before the filing of the case or the publication of discovered emails, the original work of fiction was not a libel. And by telling everyone that the connection existed, yes, the plaintiff was impliedly consenting to any further alleged libel and it would be a defense from liability for the plaintiff. Furthermore, there wouldn't be libel unless whatever the fictional character did was untrue (something the real plaintiff didn't do) and the public would think that whatever the character did was actually an assertion that the real plaintiff did it. I could write a satire about a President Brock O'Bama who is actually a lizardman in disguise, and that's my First Amendment right, not a slander of the President. Disclaimer: only describing the common law and majority rules. State laws may differ.

Can I publish a book and source code in the book under different licenses?

Can I publish a book and the source code in the book under two different licenses? Eg. Publish a book under the GNU FDL license, but license the source code examples in this book under the Apache license?

As long as you own the copyright to the works, you can even publish the source code itself under two different licenses , which can be radically different. For example, MySQL is licensed under both a commercial and an open-source license. Given that you can publish a single piece of work as multiple licenses, it is your choice which one you wish to grant to the book or the code, as long as you own the copyright.

Is homeowner liable for police injury during raid

Hypothetically speaking, let's say that a person is very paranoid about intruders, government, end of the world, so on. They decided to buy some land and have a fence around the property with clear markings "do not enter" and warnings that there are "traps" in the area. The person makes every reasonable attempt to warn people not to enter. Now after sometime, authorities secure a search warrant and approval to raid the house via legal means, and the warrant and raid are both justifiably issued. Let's assume that the person was willing to cooperate with the authorities as well after they had identified themselves. The person is also willing to assist in disarming / identifying any traps. Would the home owner be liable for any damages done to the authorities if they were injured by his "traps" prior to them identifying themselves or after? Note: Trap could be anything in FM 5 31 maybe even an inner electric fence.

Even if the authorities aren't injured, the homeowner may well face criminal charges. Many states make it illegal to set booby traps; for instance, California makes it a felony in section 20110 of the Penal Code . The definition of "boobytrap" in the code is "any concealed or camouflaged device designed to cause great bodily injury when triggered by an action of any unsuspecting person coming across the device;" on the face of it, it is definitely not clear that a generic "there are traps" sign makes it not a boobytrap (whereas a sign on the trap announcing its presence probably would). If a trespasser falls victim to a trap, that can be grounds for a successful lawsuit against the homeowner; see Katko v. Briney (an Iowa civil case). The duty of care to trespassers is low; there's no general duty to mitigate hazards. However, one part of the duty is generally that one may not lay a trap for trespassers (example: report from Connecticut Office of Legal Research ).

Is homeowner liable for police injury during raid

Hypothetically speaking, let's say that a person is very paranoid about intruders, government, end of the world, so on. They decided to buy some land and have a fence around the property with clear markings "do not enter" and warnings that there are "traps" in the area. The person makes every reasonable attempt to warn people not to enter. Now after sometime, authorities secure a search warrant and approval to raid the house via legal means, and the warrant and raid are both justifiably issued. Let's assume that the person was willing to cooperate with the authorities as well after they had identified themselves. The person is also willing to assist in disarming / identifying any traps. Would the home owner be liable for any damages done to the authorities if they were injured by his "traps" prior to them identifying themselves or after? Note: Trap could be anything in FM 5 31 maybe even an inner electric fence.

Unequivocally yes ; the home owner would potentially be liable for damages and possibly with the crimes of grievous bodily harm and/or manslaughter. Specifics will vary by state jurisdiction but the general common law remedy would be the tort of negligence. One of the recognised duties of care is of a occupier to entrants. Entrants include those with express permission (e.g. guests), by implied permission (e.g. the postman) and even in some circumstances uninvited visitors (especially children and "innocent" trespassers). An "innocent" trespasser is a person on property without express permission but who has not a) broken in and b) been asked to leave. The law enforcement officers in the circumstances you describe, where the person is cooperative, would fall into the first category. Even without permission, they would probably fall into the second category and certainly the third if they were engaged in the lawful course of their duties. The validity of the warrant is irrelevant; if the officers genuinely believe that it is valid then they are acting lawfully. They could also enter lawfully if they had probable cause. Having established that the duty exists, the occupier must take reasonable care not to cause injury to visitors. "Reasonable" is an objective measure and takes account of the circumstances, for example: if the land is used as a military live firing range where the "traps" consist of unexploded ordinance, then erecting a barbed wire fence 6 foot high with signs in the most commonly used languages for the area is probably reasonable if the land is used for hunting and signposted as such and the traps are for wild animals, are deployed only for the period of the hunting and signposted at the location then that is probably reasonable. if the land is a private home then prima facie , booby-trapping it with the intent to injure or kill people is not reasonable and erecting signs does not make it so. In these circumstances the action is not just negligent, it is criminally negligent and any injuries or deaths caused would be criminal as well as open to civil remedies. The Castle Doctrine is inapplicable see this section.

Does "furtherance of a crime" exception to attorney–client privilege apply if the attorney is unsure?

If a lawyer suspects that a client shall commit an imminent crime, then attorney-client privilege ceases and communication is not privileged. But what if the lawyer is unsure whether the crime is about be committed? For example, consider this hypothetical: A client informs their lawyer after killing someone through torture (for example, by burying them alive), and also of the location of the killing. If the victim has already died, then the crime is murder; so presumably this communication is privileged. However, if the lawyer doesn't know definitely that the person has died (attempted murder), then furtherance of that crime may be prevented. Does the lawyer have a duty to report the information to the police? Are there any legal implications if the lawyer is wrong?

(US Answer) Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, " A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary... to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm... " Most states have incorporated the MRPC into their own state legal ethics codes. Therefore, as to whether a lawyer may tell the police, it comes down to whether death is reasonably certain, and whether the lawyer reasonably believes disclosure is necessary to prevent the death. In the case of a person buried alive, death is reasonably certain, and whether the disclosure is reasonable will be based on what the lawyer knows and doesn't know - was it a month ago? ten minutes ago? etc. If the lawyer believes it is too late, he is obligated to stay quiet. If he believes there is a chance of saving the life, and that belief is later judged reasonable if he is investigated, there will be no penalty for him if he discloses. There is no duty for a lawyer to report a crime committed by a non-lawyer/non-judge, so non-disclosure should have no negative ramifications legally. Disclosure found to be unreasonable could be punished by private censure, public censure, suspension of license, or even disbarment, depending on the view of the bar association's ethics investigators.

Does "furtherance of a crime" exception to attorney–client privilege apply if the attorney is unsure?

If a lawyer suspects that a client shall commit an imminent crime, then attorney-client privilege ceases and communication is not privileged. But what if the lawyer is unsure whether the crime is about be committed? For example, consider this hypothetical: A client informs their lawyer after killing someone through torture (for example, by burying them alive), and also of the location of the killing. If the victim has already died, then the crime is murder; so presumably this communication is privileged. However, if the lawyer doesn't know definitely that the person has died (attempted murder), then furtherance of that crime may be prevented. Does the lawyer have a duty to report the information to the police? Are there any legal implications if the lawyer is wrong?

I found this excellent write up on the limitations of attorney-client privilege The privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client." *Source: United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357, 358-59 (D. Mass. 1950) So based on this there could be several things that would apply that would limit the attorney-client privilege. If the attorney had never represented the "client" and had not entered into some sort of an agreement where the client could reasonable expect that the privilege would be granted. Something to the effect of: client:I commited a crime and would like you to represent me. Lawyer: Ok tell me what happened Here the client clearly indicated he was looking for representation and the attorney indicated he understood and asked for the details. In this case, based on the criteria set out in USvUSMC(quoted above) the privilege would exist. Now if the client indicates that he left the victim to die, then yes the privelege could be breached due to: Crime or Fraud Exception. If a client seeks advice from an attorney to assist with the furtherance of a crime or fraud or the post-commission concealment of the crime or fraud, then the communication is not privileged. If, however, the client has completed a crime or fraud and then seeks the advice of legal counsel, such communications are privileged unless the client considers covering up the crime or fraud. The attorney has reasonable belief that a crime is still being committed and allowing the victim to die. In fact if the body had not been found then it could be argued that the failure to report a death crime is ongoing and could breach privilege. Now if the client barged in, confessed the crime, then asked if the attorney would represent him, the attorney could reasonably state that no privilege exists, and could share the confession with the authorities.

Is it legal to be detained by a private rail or bus company for not having a valid ticket?

My question relates specifically to the UK. Is it legal for a private company, say a train or bus company, to detain you if they determine that you don't have a valid ticket? Furthermore, if it is legal, what rights do you have in such circumstances? Obviously, if you were arrested by the police you would have a given set of rights, but train companies, and the private companies that run the train stations in the UK, whilst government owned, are private companies (if I understand correctly).

I'm not a lawyer; I'm not your lawyer . In this case, if you don't have a valid ticket (or refuse to produce one), and don't provide your name and address, the officer of a railway company may detain you 1 (my emphasis): If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address , any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law. Essentially, if you don't have a ticket and are asked to show one, it would seem that you are required to provide either your name and address, or pay your fare. The only cases I can find where s 5(2) has been cited were: Covington v. Wright [1963] 2 QB 469 The defendant boarded a bus and travelled further than the fare was paid for. However, being a case involving a bus and a train, one would assume that the legislation and therefore the case is not authoritative for trains. However, the London Passenger Transport Act cited herein seems to have the same effect as the Regulation of Railways Act. Ormiston v. Great Western Railway Company [1917] 1 KB 598 This case involves a passenger travelling on a valid, first-class ticket, then being detained by a porter who claimed that they had held only a third class ticket. He was released and was not entitled to special damages simply as a result of slander. On the relevant question of citizens' arrests, it was found later that 2 : Court had to consider the question whether it is necessary to allege that the words impute an indictable offence, and it was held that it was not necessary. Pollock B. in giving judgment said: “The expression ‘indictable offence’ seems to have crept into the text-books, but I think the passages in Comyns' Digest are conclusive to shew that words which impute any criminal offence are actionable per se. That is, the notion that the offence must be indictable seems not to be based in common law. As for your question about your rights - the power to arrest you though the punishment is only a fine does not support an action for special damage on its own. You should probably consult a lawyer if you are so detained, as there does not seem to be anything in the Act that allows the company to prohibit you from doing so - or from doing else, for that matter, so long as you do not breach the peace or act in some other tortious manner. You would also likely to be free to pay the fine (or produce the ticket, if you had one and had not done so by this point in time), or provide your name and address. If you were detained without cause - that is, you were not given the option to supply your name, or not given the opportunity to produce your ticket or pay the balance of the fare, then you may be entitled to damages under a claim of an action of false imprisonment. Apologies for the lack of links to the cases - I've used paid databases so they likely wouldn't work, but you can try to find these cases in BAILII or some other database you might have access to. 1. Regulation of Railways Act 1889 52 & 53 Vict c 57 s 5(2) This legislation has had numerous amendments and restrictions applied - you should consider the full extent of these as applicable to the specific location where such an incident occurs. 2. Hellwig v Mitchell [1910] 1 KB 609

How to avoid image copyright infringement

I am making a website for a client who has a store and is trying to sell their products on the web now. I told the client that they would need to provide me with images of all of their products and instead, they directed me to the websites that sell the same items and told me to use their images instead. I explained that we would need to at least provide a shoutout to the website for using their images but the client does not want this. Do I need to be worried about using another web site's images when I am simply the builder of the web site who is not gaining any personal benefit besides being able to use the web site as part of my portfolio?

In the abstract, two businesses that cooperate in violating a third party's copyright could both face liability. Applying that information to the facts you gave would amount to legal counsel. If you don't want to tell the client 'no,' you should speak to a lawyer about your potential liability. Beyond the legalities, do you really want your portfolio to advertise that you design sites by ripping other sites off?

What regulations govern suspension of students?

Where students are violent, suspensions may be justified, in order to ensure the safety of other students. However, for non -violent behaviour, what regulations are in place with regards to suspension, and what recourse do students (or their parents) have? Surely, if a student is entitled to an education by means of some statute or regulation, withholding it needs to be statutorily or regulatorily sanctioned? This relates specifically to the United States; I imagine states will have different regulations, so please answer with whatever jurisdiction(s) you are comfortable with. If you also have experience with other jurisdictions, that would be interesting.

General Resource : the U.S. Department of Education puts out a nice compendium of the various state laws. Below are my jurisdictions. Illinois : (105 ILCS 5/10-22.6) In brief, school administrators may be delegated the authority to suspend students for gross disobedience or misconduct without consulting the board or the parents. In this case they must notify parents of the suspension, forward a full statement of reasons for the suspension, and notify the parents of their right to have it reviewed by the board. Expulsions, on the other hand, require a hearing at the board. Much of the due process for suspensions came frome Goss v. Lopez , 419 U.S. 565 (1975). Of interest, language changes took effect in 2011 authorizing suspension for gross disobedience or misconduct using electronic means . North Carolina : ( NCGS 115C ) In particular, Article 27 deals with discipline. The law distinguishes between short-term, long-term, and 365-day suspensions (...the latter is for firearm possession). This is a fairly good summary of NC School Discipline Laws and Regulations (prepared by ed.gov), while this is a good summary of the governing case law.

What regulations govern suspension of students?

Where students are violent, suspensions may be justified, in order to ensure the safety of other students. However, for non -violent behaviour, what regulations are in place with regards to suspension, and what recourse do students (or their parents) have? Surely, if a student is entitled to an education by means of some statute or regulation, withholding it needs to be statutorily or regulatorily sanctioned? This relates specifically to the United States; I imagine states will have different regulations, so please answer with whatever jurisdiction(s) you are comfortable with. If you also have experience with other jurisdictions, that would be interesting.

Education is a matter of state law, trumped in some areas by rights under federal law. And, of course, local laws or regulations may exist to address the specifics of administrative proceedings required by state and federal law. Here are the California Education Code sections on suspension . Here is the Los Angeles Unified School District's page on appeal of suspension . Expulsion appeals are handled by the county board . Recourse to the courts would be by petition for a writ of mandamus , under California law. Other states may have different procedures.

Are principles of judicial interpretation subject to legislative control?

In the news you often read about differing philosophies of judicial interpretation, especially when important cases are decided (like several recent US Supreme Court decisions). I recently browsed through a book by Antonin Scalia in which he outlines a number of specific principles he endorses and does not endorse, with citations to earlier case law. Apparently there is some debate about the merits of such principles and how (or whether) judicial interpretation of legislation comports with legislators' understanding of what they are doing. It is clear that many of these "canons" can be overridden on a per-law basis by including language in the law that explicitly goes against some judicial principle that would otherwise apply. However, my question is, are the principles themselves subject to legislative control in a broader sense? Can legislatures pass "meta-laws" which define how other laws are to be intepreted? For instance, could the US Congress pass a law saying "Wherever ambiguity arises in statutory interpretation, the statute in question shall be understood as to favor the least powerful party in a dispute"? Or "No special deference shall be given to interpretation of statute by administrative agencies" (i.e., to curtail Chevron deference)? Or more generally, can a legislature pass a law saying "The law shall be understood as X", where X is some principle of intepretation that is not specific to the law in which it is contained, but is meant to constrain interpretations of all other laws (or some subset of other laws)? Would such laws be valid? I'm interested mostly in the situation in the US, but would be interested to know how the issue could play out in different countires, or in particular US states.

Yes, legislative bodies can pass legislation that constrains the interpretation of the rest of their legislation. In the U.S., see 1 U.S.C §1-8 . In Canada, see The Interpretation Act . In British Columbia, see The Interpretation Act . As an example of a back-and-forth between the courts and congress regarding a setting a standard of review, consider the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Summarizing from Holt v. Hobbs 574 U. S. ____ (2015): In Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith , 494 U. S. 872 (1990), the Supreme Court held that "neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden the exercise of religion usually do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment". Congress desired a stricter test that prohibited the burdening of religion regardless of whether the laws are neutral or generally applicable. Congress passed RFRA in 1993, which required that "[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person — (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest". RFRA was passed with the goal of setting the standard of review for all other legislation that burdens a person's exercise of religion. Without RFRA, the standard of review would have been that used in Smith , based solely on First Amendment protections. With RFRA, the standard of review became stronger, basically strict scrutiny. An example of Congress setting the factors to be used in a balancing test is the addition of fair use via the Copyright Act of 1976. Prior to 1976, courts had been applying a fair use exception based on common law rather than statute. The act encoded in statute the four factors that Congress wanted to be considered and listed several purposes for which fair use was explicitly applicable. In this case, Congress basically codified the fair use doctrine as it was being used at the time by the courts. It could be considered an expression of approval for the existing interpretation of the time and a desire to prevent drift in that analysis.

Are principles of judicial interpretation subject to legislative control?

In the news you often read about differing philosophies of judicial interpretation, especially when important cases are decided (like several recent US Supreme Court decisions). I recently browsed through a book by Antonin Scalia in which he outlines a number of specific principles he endorses and does not endorse, with citations to earlier case law. Apparently there is some debate about the merits of such principles and how (or whether) judicial interpretation of legislation comports with legislators' understanding of what they are doing. It is clear that many of these "canons" can be overridden on a per-law basis by including language in the law that explicitly goes against some judicial principle that would otherwise apply. However, my question is, are the principles themselves subject to legislative control in a broader sense? Can legislatures pass "meta-laws" which define how other laws are to be intepreted? For instance, could the US Congress pass a law saying "Wherever ambiguity arises in statutory interpretation, the statute in question shall be understood as to favor the least powerful party in a dispute"? Or "No special deference shall be given to interpretation of statute by administrative agencies" (i.e., to curtail Chevron deference)? Or more generally, can a legislature pass a law saying "The law shall be understood as X", where X is some principle of intepretation that is not specific to the law in which it is contained, but is meant to constrain interpretations of all other laws (or some subset of other laws)? Would such laws be valid? I'm interested mostly in the situation in the US, but would be interested to know how the issue could play out in different countires, or in particular US states.

See also the Rules of Decision Act (28 U.S.C. § 1652) which requires the application of State law in Federal courts, serving a meta-function: The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply. In California, the following statutes fix general rules of construction for statutory interpretation: California Civil Code §§ 5, 13, 21 California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 4, 16, 1858, 1859 California Penal Code §§ 4, 7, 7.5 More specific sub-areas of law may have their own statutory rules of intepretation. And way down in the weeds, there are the definitions of terms specific to their usage in specifics groups of statutes, which are not always in harmony. However, statutory rules of interpretation are themselves open to judicial interpretation and extension or specification. For example: Calla Tayud vs. State of California (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1057, 1065. The fundamental purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers as to effectuate the purpose of the law [Citations.] In order to determine this intent, we began by examining the language of the statute [Citation.] 'But [i]t a settled principle statute interpretation and language of this statute should not be given a literal meaning if doing so would result in absurd consequences which the Legislature did not intend' [Citations.] Thus, '[t]he intent prevails over the letter and the letter will have possible be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act' [Citations.] Finally, we do not construe statutes in isolation, but rather read every statute 'with reference to the entire scheme of law of which it is part so that the whole may be harmonized and retain effectiveness.

Landlords liability for white goods

I have just rented a property in England. The house has a built-in cooker, but the markings on the oven panel for temperature and the different modes (grill/defrost/fan settings etc.) are completely worn off. I have been told by the estate agent that there is nothing he can do and that I will have to cook by "trial and error". Does the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 apply here and could I reasonably insist that the agent contacts the landlord to get the panel replaced?

The Supply of Goods and Services Act doesn't apply here. Section 1(1) says that the only contracts concerning goods covered by the Act are those 'under which one person transfers or agrees to transfer to another the property in goods'. A lease doesn't transfer the cooker to you: it gives you exclusive possession of a dwelling containing the cooker. The cooker remains the property of the landlord. Assuming that your lease is for fewer than seven years, the statutory provision for a landlord's repair obligations is set out in s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 . Unfortunately this does not help you: although the landlord is responsible for maintaining the gas and electricity supply equipment, the Act specifically excludes 'appliances for making use of the supply of ... gas or electricity'. The text of your lease may have specific provisions for the repair and upkeep of the cooker, so you should read it carefully and seek advice if you are unsure. Most landlords will leave copies of the instruction manuals for installed appliances. You should ask for a copy of the manual if one was not provided and can't be found in the flat. In practical terms, you should report the fault in writing to the landlord (or managing agent if you have one), saying that you are unable to use the cooker and that it is a potential danger given that you don't understand how it works. At the very least, you should ensure that the condition of the cooker is reflected correctly on your inventory.

Forcing a government official to do their job

In the wake of the United States Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage , a number of county clerks and other officials have announced their intent to refuse to issue licenses for such marriages. What legal remedies are there in such a situation?

The details depend on the state, of course. The common law thing you are looking for is a writ of mandamus -- a court order to a public official to do something (or not do something) that they are required to do under the law. Writs of mandamus were traditionally only applicable to ministerial tasks (i.e. things that are basically paper-shuffling where there is little to no discretion); marriage licenses are typically considered ministerial. With discretionary actions, things are much more complicated because the government official is supposed to have significant ability to decide what should and shouldn't be allowed; mandamus doesn't apply unless there's a right to the action requested. In some cases, mandamus has been replaced with other forms of judicial review, but in Alabama it is definitely still mandamus that's involved ( source : mandamus is what's previously been used to stop issuance of licenses). For federal review, which is more likely to get somewhere, the approach to use is the exact same thing that led to DeBoer (the case bundled into Obergefell that was about granting licenses), and Perry , and many of the other gay marriage cases: a lawsuit seeking an injunction or declaratory relief under 42 USC 1983, which allows actions in law and equity whenever anyone denies civil rights to a US citizen (or someone in the jurisdiction of the US) under color of law. The ultimate result of this kind of suit is a federal court order to issue a marriage license, or a declaration that it's illegal to not issue the license (and so anyone who doesn't will be subject to a court order). Violating this order, like any court order, is contempt of court.

Is it legal to search for commerce sites listing items at erroneously low prices and exploiting such errors?

Occasionally a website will post incorrect prices for items they are selling. (Maybe it was caused by a typo during their data entry process, or the result of a bug in their code.) Once they realize their error they correct it. If I notice the error before they do, and I attempt to buy the item before they fix it, is that legal? I.e., if I knowingly try to exploit their mistake could I be violating any law? Now, if I continually monitor websites, waiting for such an error, just so I can buy at erroneously low prices, does that pose any further legal issues? I'm not hacking or changing their prices. I'm just waiting to buy until an incorrect price is mistakenly posted.

There may be violations of consumer protection and/or advertising statutes here by the online store, but the common law position is that: The website's owner is making an invitation to treat Based on that, you are making an offer The contract comes into place when the website's owner accepts your offer. The time of contract formation is "when the parties give objective manifestation of an intent to form the contract." You would need to read the site very carefully, in particular their terms and conditions, acknowledgement page and/or email to see if they are actually accepting your offer or if there are conditions attached. If there is no clear, unconditional acceptance then there is no contract at that time; this applies even if you have paid for the goods. If this is the case (and I strongly suspect that it would be for most online stores), then their acceptance of your offer and the formation of the contract probably does not come into effect until they "give objective manifestation of an intent to form the contract" by shipping the goods. Up until that time there is no contract and their only obligation to you is to promptly refund your money.

Is it legal to search for commerce sites listing items at erroneously low prices and exploiting such errors?

Occasionally a website will post incorrect prices for items they are selling. (Maybe it was caused by a typo during their data entry process, or the result of a bug in their code.) Once they realize their error they correct it. If I notice the error before they do, and I attempt to buy the item before they fix it, is that legal? I.e., if I knowingly try to exploit their mistake could I be violating any law? Now, if I continually monitor websites, waiting for such an error, just so I can buy at erroneously low prices, does that pose any further legal issues? I'm not hacking or changing their prices. I'm just waiting to buy until an incorrect price is mistakenly posted.

It may or may not be a crime (I will come back to this tomorrow, but I strongly doubt it because there is no deception on your part), but there is another thing at play: if they discover the error before shipping the good, they may well be able to refund you and deny the purchase. A unilateral mistake will often result in a voidable contract if the other party knew of the mistake and intentionally exploited it. ( source )

Does a non-stock company in Virginia need to have a Board of Directors?

Do the articles of incorporation and/or bylaws need to mention how the board of directors is selected, of can it be in another document, or can the nonprofit organization not have a board of directors? Can the board of directors be called something else, Executive Board for example?

Yes, Virginia nonstock corporations are required to have a board of directors...unless the members or directors expressly agree to eliminate it. Requirement for and duties of board of directors (§ 13.1-853) A. Except as provided in an agreement authorized by § 13.1-852.1, each corporation shall have a board of directors. B. All corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business and affairs of the corporation managed under the direction of, its board of directors, subject to any limitation set forth in the articles of incorporation or in an agreement authorized by § 13.1-852.1. Your director selection procedure is to be set forth in the articles of incorporation. The requirement exists not only to explain how the initial board will be selected, but how subsequent boards will be selected. For example, you'll want to determine whether there'll be members. If so, will the members elect the directors? Will the board be self-perpetuating? Will you have and ex-officio director? There's a good FAQ on the process here . Big picture: Virginia wants companies to have a procedure that doesn't depend on specific, named people who may or may not be around in the future; it wants companies to develop a process . As to the naming: for the state's purposes, you're creating a "board of directors," which is what you'll call it in the incorporation documents. It's up to you to decide whether it'll also have a non-legal title for day-to-day operations or development/marketing purposes. Side note: it looks like you've already found Virginia's Nonstock Corporation Act, § 13.1-801. If you get into a pinch, I've always found the State Corporation Commission to be helpful by phone.

Will a UK Police Information Notice appear on an enhanced DBS certificate?

I have been handed a Police Information Notice. Now, I have done some research and found that it does come up on an Enhanced DBS check, but only if the chief superwhatnot decides that it is relevant. However i just spoke to the police and they told me that it would not appear on a Enhanced CRB/DBS. Is there anyone on here that could clarify whether this would be an issue? It's over someone/something so pathetic. I am so confused.

The powers and duties of the police in providing information for an Enhanced DBS certificate are set out in s115 Police Act 1997 . s115(7) provides that— Before issuing an enhanced criminal record certificate the Secretary of State shall request the chief officer of every relevant police force to provide any information which, in the chief officer’s opinion— (a) might be relevant for the purpose [for which the certificate was requested], and (b) ought to be included in the certificate. The construction of this subsection was considered in R (L) v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2007] EWCA Civ 168 . The appellant argued that 'any information' should be read narrowly to mean only matters which relate to criminal activity or propensity. The court disagreed, finding that 'any information' means just that. If, therefore, in the chief officer's opinion a police information notice might be relevant and ought to be disclosed on an enhanced DBS certificate, he can include it. Individual police authorities (and indeed the police as a whole) may also have internal guidance on the matter, but this is the position in law. It must also be considered whether the PIN has been retained. In considering the competing interests of Article 8 ECHR, the court found in R (T) v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 1115 (Admin) that— If the sole purpose of retention were to lay the ground for establishing a "course of conduct" under the Protection from Harassment Act, then only a much shorter period could be justified. But, for other purposes such as assisting in resolving later allegations, and investigating other crimes, a longer period of retention might well be appropriate. As an aside, an enhanced DBS check can also result in information being disclosed to the subject of the check but not included on the certificate under s115(8) of the Act.

Is it legal for landlord to prohibit subleasing, under Texas law?

It's quite common that plans change, and a residential lease must be broken. Of course, since one has agreed to pay the full price of the lease, they're on the hook for it, unless they can find someone else to help them mitigate the damages. However, the sublessee might only be interested in taking over a certain part of the lease (e.g., say, month 5, 6, 7 and 8 of a 12-month lease), and would not be interested in taking over the whole lease, thus having to find another lessee for months 9 to 12. Does the landlord have the right to refuse to mitigate tenant's damages to accommodate such an arrangement? In my experience, the corporate landlords always simply say "we don't do subleasing, you can only take over the whole lease [and then deal with re-leasing]". But doesn't this violate the provision about damage mitigation? http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PR/htm/PR.91.htm Sec. 91.006. LANDLORD'S DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES. (a) A landlord has a duty to mitigate damages if a tenant abandons the leased premises in violation of the lease. (b) A provision of a lease that purports to waive a right or to exempt a landlord from a liability or duty under this section is void. I was reading on UniformLaws.org that in certain situations and/or states, landlord's failure to mitigate damages is automatically grounds for contract termination (thus no rent or damages are further due), does it at all apply here? IV. What Are the Consequences of Landlord’s Failure to Mitigate? Jurisdictions have taken one of two approaches in handling the landlord’s failure to comply with the duty to mitigate. The current version of the URLTA provides that if the landlord fails to use reasonable efforts to mitigate, “the rental agreement is deemed to be terminated by the landlord as of the date the landlord has notice of the abandonment.” In effect, this provision precludes the landlord from recovering any damages past the date of the abandonment. About half of the jurisdictions that have URLTA-based statutes (AK, AZ, CT, IA, KS, KY, MT, OK, OR, RI, SC) have retained this provision in their statutes, while the other half (AL, FL, HI, MI, MS, NE, MN, TN, VA, WA) have omitted it. Nevada has a similar provision in its non-URLTA statute. If you're the original tenant, what recourse can you take? If you're a prospective sublessee, is the landlord at all obligated to put you in contact with the original tenant for you to potentially inform the original tenant of their rights, and, potentially, see if they're interested for a sublease instead? Anything else that can be done if you're already in contact with the original tenant?

Landlord-tenant law is an area that is heavily statute-based, jurisdiction-dependent, and far from uniform across the country. A complex, specific, multi-part question like this one is not going to get a simple answer. In general, though, I can clear up some of the confusion with a quick example. Let's say you abandon your lease, but as you do so, you write a letter to the landlord saying: "While I won't be living there any more, my friend's band needs a place to practice. They have agreed to pay half my rent if you let them play there 4 nights a week. They'll be starting on Tuesday at 11 PM: please have a set of keys waiting for them at the front desk." The landlord does not give your friends the keys. They re-key and clean the apartment and rent it two months later. Are you going to stand up in court and argue, with a straight face, that you should only be liable for half the rent for those two months because of the landlord's "failure to mitigate"? Again, jurisdictions differ, but the duty to mitigate is not absolute. If the landlord could rent out a $1,000/month apartment for $5 a month, it doesn't have to do that, and you can't make the Court take $5 a month off their damages if they refuse to do so. Also, you seem to be confused about what subleasing is. A sublessor owes duties to you; you still owe the duty to your landlord to get the rent paid. A sublease is an agreement between you and a third party to pay you rent. It does not affect your relationship with the landlord at all, unless it's a breach of your agreement with the landlord or of local law protecting the landlord from unauthorized subleasing.

Can I be contractually bound by terms accompanying an unsolicited document?

This is just a contract question, and I am not concerned with the intellectual property implications at this point. I'm in the US. The scenario : Suppose I was given an unsolicited document, so at no point did I agree to receive it or any terms attached to it. The document expressly states, however, that I may not electronically reproduce or even print the document without the owner's prior consent. Although I did not agree to these terms on receipt, so there is no mutual assent there, is there any legal theory under which I could be bound by those restraints? E.g., if I print or email the document without the owner's consent could I be liable under the document's terms (similar to a click-wrap or browse-wrap)?

There are a few different issues at play here, and one of them is copyright law, which can't be ignored in your example. As a general rule, a contract is formed when there's a "meeting of the minds." This means that two people agree to a deal, and once they agree, they are both bound by it. In practice, this means that some sort of consent is required before you are bound by the terms of a contract. This can be signing on a dotted line; it can be opening a shrinkwrapped package or clicking "Okay" on the iTunes terms and conditions. It can be boarding the ship using the ticket with the disclaimer printed on it, even if you never turned the ticket over and read it. But I can't, for instance, send you a poem, along with a note saying that according to our new contract, you owe me $10,000 dollars for it. The question of what constitutes assent, and what is and isn't enforceable, in shrinkwrap and other adhesion contracts, is fairly contentious, and if this affects you, you need to talk to a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction. But in general, you can't create a contract unilaterally. But that's separate from the question of whether the actual terms you give are enforceable. If the sender holds the copyright on the document, then they absolutely have the right to say that you can't copy it--but that's another extremely complex area of law that is going to depend on the specifics of your situation.

Can I be contractually bound by terms accompanying an unsolicited document?

This is just a contract question, and I am not concerned with the intellectual property implications at this point. I'm in the US. The scenario : Suppose I was given an unsolicited document, so at no point did I agree to receive it or any terms attached to it. The document expressly states, however, that I may not electronically reproduce or even print the document without the owner's prior consent. Although I did not agree to these terms on receipt, so there is no mutual assent there, is there any legal theory under which I could be bound by those restraints? E.g., if I print or email the document without the owner's consent could I be liable under the document's terms (similar to a click-wrap or browse-wrap)?

In summary a common law contract requires (Australian Business Law 2002 p. 5-020): Intention to create legal relations. Do the parties really intend to be legally bound? Or is the arrangement purely "non-business"? Agreement. Offer and acceptance, when communicated to each other, or equivalent evidence of a concluded agreement, make up an agreement. Consideration. Unless the agreement is reinforced by "something for something", it will not be considered a legally enforceable agreement or contract. Legal Capacity. Is the agreement made while one party lacks legal capacity, for instance is under age or under the influence of alcohol? Genuine Consent. Questions arise in this context as to what was actually agreed. What if the goods contracted for have sunk at sea? Legality of Objects. A contract formed for an illegal purpose cannot be upheld. The circumstances you describe do not meet 1, 2 & 3 above so there is no contract when you receive the document. Since you have specifically excluded IP issues (which may not apply in any case as the document in question may not have copyright protection): dealing with the document in the way you describe – against the owner's express wishes – would probably constitute both the crime and tort of trespass to chattels .

Can I embed YouTube videos?

Is embedding YouTube music videos on a webpage using the native iframe player illegal? Are there issues (for instance, copyright) to be wary of?

Given that Google (the company that owns YouTube) provides instructions for this it would seem they are offering a safe harbor if you follow their instructions, regardless of any other law. Of course you should always review the Terms of Service governing the contents and APIs you are using.

When were the Black Acts passed in Scotland?

In 'The Scottish Legal System' 1 , the authors say that The first printing press was introduced into Scotland in 1507, but it was not until 1541 with the printing of the Black Acts that it was applied to legislation. However, the Records of the Parliaments of Scotland state that the Black Acts were not passed until May 1584. Which source is correct? 1 White, Willock & MacQueen; fifth edition (2013); para 2.15.

From what I can tell, both are correct. The RPS refers to two different things as Black Acts: laws printed with a printing press using a heavy typeface (hence, "black") in 1541 , and laws that established Parliament as supreme over the church (called "black" because they were bad for the church) in 1584 .

Can an API be licensed?

My question is this simple - can an API (Application Programming Interface) be licensed? How does such licensing work? I mean, to have the source/binary licensed under one licence and the API under another one (or even the same one). Example usages: source closed + API licenced open source + API licenced I have found following examples of API licensing: Google Maps API Licence Mapillary API

To use an API over a network connection (as opposed to, e.g., the Windows API), a user communicates a request to the API host, or server, and awaits a response. The host of the remote API can refuse to serve requests from users for probably any reason. Such services often require users to accept a license as a condition of using the service, and they may charge a fee as a condition of the license. A license to use a service is obviously not necessarily bound to a license for the use of its source code, just as the ability to reach the service is not dependent on the ability to see (let alone use) the code in any format, whether it be the source code or some compiled form of the code. In essence, source licenses and service licenses have different primary goals, at least inasmuch as the source license seeks to restrict someone who has actual physical access to compiled code, and possibly source code. Service licenses do not have that concern, though I have seen service licenses that also prohibit decompiling. This is probably the result of a CYA attitude among lawyers: the language is already in the standard software license text, and it doesn't hurt anything to leave it in, and it could help if a service user somehow managed to download the program code.

Who owns a copyright on a scanned work?

If there is a work that is out of copyright (was published in the 1800s) but I can only find it in an online repository, can the repository claim a copyright or other limitation on my use of their scanned copy?

In the US, the original author still owns the copyright, unless the original work was out of copyright (in which case no one owns the copyright): copyright is not granted for just pressing a "scan" button, and mechanical reproductions are not eligible for copyright (copyright protects creativity , and a scan involves zero creativity). To quote 313.4(A) ("Mere Copies") of the Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition: A work that is a mere copy of another work of authorship is not copyrightable. The Office cannot register a work that has been merely copied from another work of authorship without any additional authorship. [...] Examples: [...] Photocopying, scanning, or digitizing a literary work. That doesn't necessarily mean the repository can't put any restriction on your use of the copy; the repository may have a terms of service. Terms of service are rooted in contract law, not copyright; just because the work is in the public domain, doesn't force the repository to show it to anyone who asks, and they can force you to agree to a contract first. The enforceability of that contract is fact-dependent.

Non est factum for contracts signed in multiple languages

We are drafting a master services agreement and associated service agreements in both Japanese and English. The MSA will be translated into Japanese from the english draft by an English speaking Japanese lawyer. We are binding the jurisdiction to Hawaii. My question is do the service agreements need to also be translated to avoid a Non est factum style situation? Or under State of Hawaii law is it possible for a non-english speaker to sign an english only version and for it to still hold? Generally what are the Non est factum litmus tests in the State of Hawaii when one is specifically addressing contracts written in non-native languages?

Remember a contract involves the "meeting of the minds"; the paperwork is only the documentation of that "meeting". While courts will generally confine themselves to the written document they are actually considering the legal relationship as a whole. A non-English speaker (or even English as a second language) could certainly make the argument that the documentation does not reflect their understanding of the agreement they thought they were entering into more readily than a native speaker could. Weather this would actually amount to "non est factum" would depend on the facts but in general this defence requires the document to be radically different from what was agreed, not just different in detail. Still, who wants the fight? Particularly as you are paying to have the master agreement translated the costs of translating the service agreements should only be incremental. I was unable to find any specifically Hawaiian case law but as "non est factum" is common law the principles should be generic.

What laws regulate owners of fundraising websites?

Is it true that any one can set up a website for fundraising without declaring a legal entity? For example, my church needs to raise fund for repair work, the project would cost about $40K. If I want to create a website for people to send me money for that cause, do I have to declare a business?

There's nothing that makes it illegal to ask others to give you money to donate to a third party. But if you want to say you're fundraising on behalf of another organization, obviously you need its permission. And if you want contributions to be considered charitable for tax purposes, and you want to make sure you don't wind up paying taxes on contributions "sent to" you but then passed on, then you may need to start worrying about a separate entity. It would be more straightforward to offer to create, host and administer the website for the church, with it receiving the contributions directly.

What laws regulate owners of fundraising websites?

Is it true that any one can set up a website for fundraising without declaring a legal entity? For example, my church needs to raise fund for repair work, the project would cost about $40K. If I want to create a website for people to send me money for that cause, do I have to declare a business?

Churches are available for tax-exempt status, and if your church is filed this way then you should work with them to determine how you will legally transfer money in this tax-exempt manner. Donors (or many of them) will likely be interested in receiving a tax letter than they can claim for write-offs at year-end. You, not being an officer or representative of the legal entity that is the church, cannot write this letter and will need to coordinate with the Church officers to have them write said letters. I think you can do all of this informally. People can give you money and trust that you'll be honorable with it. You need transparency regarding online processing fees, and their actual total donation. You expose yourself to suit if someone claims malfeasance. No entity has obligation to support nor represent you in this regard. I cannot cite and fiduciary laws here – I am just giving general guidance. In general, it's probably better that you have some written agreement with the Church stating your intent and obligations, and their intent and obligations, in the relationship with you.

Do digital works need to be sent to the copyright office?

In the US, if I release a video game (or other digital work) online do I need to send a physical copy to the Copyright Office?

Not unless you also released it in physical form. First, you don't have to send anything to the copyright office; registration is only required before you actually file an infringement lawsuit. Second, when you do register, the Copyright Office says : What works may be registered with electronic deposits? The following classes of works may be registered in eCO with electronic deposit copies: Unpublished works; Works published only electronically; Published works for which the deposit requirement is ID material (see the Special Deposit Requirements section of Circular 1 for more on ID material); Published works for which there are special agreements requiring the hard copy deposits to be sent separately to the Library of Congress. All other classes of works may be registered via eCO (application and fee payment) but require hard copies of the work(s) being registered. Under part 2, if it was only released electronically the USCO will take electronic deposit.

Do digital works need to be sent to the copyright office?

In the US, if I release a video game (or other digital work) online do I need to send a physical copy to the Copyright Office?

It depends on the nature of the digital work. See one (or more) of the following: Circular 61 -- Computer programs (e.g. video games) Circular 65 -- Databases (which seems to be unavailable while under revision) Circular 66 -- Online Works (online 'content' — "text, artwork, music, audiovisual material (including any sounds), sound recordings, etc.")

Which takes precedence, conversion or bankruptcy?

Suppose Mr. Investor gives $50,000 to Mr. X to invest in his business. And suppose instead of investing in the business, Mr. X gives the $50,000 to his brother, a day or so later. That would be conversion, I believe. And let's assume that this money was easily traceable. Suppose Mr. X later files for personal bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee will want to pull the $50,000 of "fraudulent conveyance" to the brother into the bankruptcy estate. But the investor files a conversion claim for the same amount? Who (the bankruptcy estate or the investor) gets priority on the $50,000 in such a situation? Is there a legal means of determining this?

I'm assuming you're talking about U.S. federal bankruptcy law (Title 11). Once bankruptcy is declared, any claims against the debtor are subject to the bankruptcy laws, and any claims against the debtor in any other court are automatically stayed under 11 USC 362. That means if you bring an action against the debtor for conversion, a court will not hear it, because the debtor's bankruptcy stays any such action. It gets more complicated if you want to sue the brother. In general, except in limited circumstances, the brother is not protected by the bankruptcy stay. [source] . So you can likely sue the brother. Your question about "priority," however, may be based on a misunderstanding of how the law works. If you sue the brother and win, you will get a judgment against the brother, which you can then attempt to collect from the brother's assets. If the trustee convinces a court that the property in question is, in fact, the property of the estate, the trustee can recover it from the brother, or from anyone the brother subsequently gave it to, until it is transferred to a bona fide purchaser for value--who must be unaware of the fraudulent nature of the conveyance. See 11 USC 550. Because you were aware of the fraud, you are not a bona fide purchaser for value, and the statute seems to give the trustee the ability to recover the money from you, just as it would from the brother. In practical terms, this will rarely happen--but if it did, the bankruptcy estate would win, because the avoidance of a transfer means the property was never the brother's in the first place.

Which takes precedence, conversion or bankruptcy?

Suppose Mr. Investor gives $50,000 to Mr. X to invest in his business. And suppose instead of investing in the business, Mr. X gives the $50,000 to his brother, a day or so later. That would be conversion, I believe. And let's assume that this money was easily traceable. Suppose Mr. X later files for personal bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee will want to pull the $50,000 of "fraudulent conveyance" to the brother into the bankruptcy estate. But the investor files a conversion claim for the same amount? Who (the bankruptcy estate or the investor) gets priority on the $50,000 in such a situation? Is there a legal means of determining this?

This sort of thing can get muddy and turns on specifics like the form of the investment, and whether it was in a business entity controlled by Mr. X, and then embezzled by Mr. X in transferring the money to his brother (thus potentially recoverable by the investor in an action against the company through tracing despite the personal bankruptcy); or invested in Mr. X's sole proprietorship, making it a part of his personal bankruptcy estate before it was embezzled (and thus properly recoverable by the trustee, with the investor a creditor of the bankruptcy estate). If you really wanted to look at it through a lens of priority, I suppose you could say that in the first case of Mr. X embezzling the invested funds from a separate company, the constructive trust over the embezzled funds trumps the bankruptcy stay, but I think the better way to look at it is as above. See, e.g., IN RE: George D. NEWPOWER for discussion of tracing embezzled funds in bankruptcy, the implications of title to property under the law of theft vs. false pretenses, and some trust theory.

What are good options for affordable consultations on U.S. law that can be reached from overseas?

I have a U.S. legal problem and would like to know if there are places I could either call or email to get some legal advice relatively cheaply? Unfortunately I am outside of the U.S., so visiting an office in the U.S. is not an option. This is regarding civil law in an educational setting. Where I live, there are lawyers appointed by public offices that give free legal advice over the phone/email/visitation. Is there anything like that in the U.S.?

You might try reaching out to the Education Law Center. They may be able to provide information, or a referral to another organization or law office. Intake information is on the contact page .

What are possible motives for avoiding insurance in an auto accident?

My parked car was involved in a hit and run accident outside of my house. Luckily, one of my neighbors saw the incident happen and the other driver ended up getting caught and cited by the police for it. The driver is a minor, so his father is handling the ordeal. He is very insistent that we not go through insurance, so he would like to pay me directly for the damage to my vehicle. My question is: what is his likely motivation for wanting to go that route? Is his motive purely financial (i.e., not have his insurance rates raised) or is there some legal benefit to him paying for my damage out of pocket? I live in the state of North Carolina.

The most likely reason the other driver doesn't want to go through insurance is to avoid a raise in his premiums. However, there could be more serious consequences, up to and including having his insurance cancelled, for example, if the son was not supposed to be driving the car, or based on the criminal nature of the offense. However, there can be serious consequences to not dealing with insurance. Some (if not all) insurance policies require him to report the accident; by failing to do so, he may risk losing his insurance. More importantly to you, if he does not report a claim to his insurance, his insurance will not pay it. This is important to you, because insurance companies, as a general rule, pay claims. Random people don't always; they ignore you, they move out of state, they go bankrupt. If this is a serious amount of money, you need to talk to a lawyer before you enter into a contract with this person, to make sure that it's enforceable, and that if you don't get paid, you have some recourse.

Can the chairman of a NASDAQ-listed company also be the chairman of another company?

I am looking to find out if a chairman of a NASDAQ-listed company can serve another company as the chairman . Please cite all sources used, so that I may reference and personally check. I looked through the NASDAQ policies and rules but was unable to find anything.

Nothing is going to explicitly say that this is authorized — it's allowed because it isn't forbidden by any of the following: The Dodd-Frank Act Sarbanes-Oxley The Securities Exchange Act (1934) The SEC rules The specific NASDAQ listing standards NASDAQ (and NYSE) has requirements for independent directors and committees (from outside of management), but it doesn't forbid a person from serving on multiple boards of directors of listed companies, as chairperson or otherwise. If the companies are competitors or have trade secrets they need to keep from each other, etc, then the conflict of interest could prevent serving on both boards.

Can California landlords protect against tenants paying retainer instead of rent?

I've heard that in San Francisco, with a landlord that's not on top of his things, and a tenant who doesn't care about his credit report, it would be cheaper to withhold rent and pay a retainer instead of paying rent, and such a tenant will not be evicted if they select doing a jury trial. Is there a way for a landlord in California to protect against such situation?

Your question is not particularly clear, but it sounds like you're describing a situation where: The tenant doesn't pay the rent The landlord files an action to evict the tenant, and The tenant files a request for a jury trial. The act of filing for a jury trial doesn't guarantee that the tenant won't be evicted, but it will likely make the eviction process more time-consuming and expensive for the landlord. I'm assuming the tenant is entitled to a jury trial--otherwise this would be useless as a stalling tactic. In that case, the question you really want answered is, can the landlord force the tenant to waive any right to a jury trial by contract, for example in the lease? In California, the answer is no . The linked document suggests that you may be able to specify some form of ADR, which would avoid the expense of a jury trial, but the California courts won't let you get away with a straight jury trial waiver.

Do I as a European Union citizen have the right to watch TV shows outside my country and download in my country?

In the UK, it is possible to download TV shows in the UK and watch them afterwards outside the UK. http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/watch_outside_uk I would like to know if this is based on EU regulations or just UK regulations. If it is based on EU regulations, it should be possible in other EU countries as well.

The BBC iPlayer restrictions are not, as far as I'm aware, based on regulations; they are based on licensing agreements (in fact, the page you link to says this explicitly). Whether the same is true of programs from other services in other countries--or even other services in the UK--is going to depend on the contracts between those services and you and the contracts between those services and their content providers.

Do claimless advertisements need to have disclaimers?

My question concerns the requirement for advertisements to carry a disclaimer stating that they are advertisements, specifically in the United States. According to the FTC (though not in these words), an advertisement delivered through a trusted medium, such as the words of a celebrity or the side of an email client, has financial incentive to exaggerate the effectiveness of the product. Therefore, ads can mislead the public by using the trust in the medium to present the biased claims as truth, if it is not made clear that the information was sponsored and therefore may not be entirely unbiased. Obviously, if a blogger publishes a blog post stating that he or she used a given product and lost X amount of weight in Y amount of time, and this blogger received compensation from the maker of the product for this blog post, it would be misleading not to disclose that this was a paid advertisement. However, what about ads that make no claims whatsoever? If a Coca Cola employee were to spray paint the Coke logo onto a telephone booth, this could encourage people nearby to drink more Coke, but there was no disputable claim made. Not only that, but a similar situation could happen organically as well, if say a supermarket marked its beverage aisle with the Coke logo. There's no claim, no possible source of exaggeration, simply an image, and the assumption that it will increase sales. Does this logo on the telephone booth then need a disclaimer? The same logic could be extended to the giant advertisements in Times Square in NYC, which often do not feature claims, just branding.

As a preliminary matter: there is no, so far as I'm aware, a blanket FTC requirement that every ad carry a disclaimer or a label. Some FTC rules do require disclaimers in certain circumstances. This document gives some background. In summary: if a claim made in an ad is false, a disclaimer can't fix it. If it is true, a disclaimer is unnecessary. A disclaimer only comes into play if the ad is true, but contains a potentially misleading implication. So, for example: "In a survey, 4 out of 5 doctors recommended our product." If 4 out of 5 doctors actually recommended some other product, no disclaimer will help you. If the survey was taken in 1901, or the only choice was between your product and being eaten by wolverines, you will need to disclose that fact prominently in your ad. One of the most commonly encountered disclosure requirements, and one you mention in your question, are disclosures related to endorsements and testimonials. The endorsement rules are set out in this document , but in general, it's the same deal: if there's something about the endorsement that would qualify it in the mind of a person evaluating whether to buy the product, then you need to disclose that. This is why you see disclaimers such as: Stating that people praising a product are actors, not real users of the product Stating that celebrities are paid endorsers, not just enthusiastic users of the product If you post something on your personal blog raving about a product, for instance, and don't disclose that you were paid to say nice things about the product, that could be a violation. There are more good examples at the link above. The common ground in all of these situations is that the advertisement or endorsement is in some way actually or potentially misleading. If you run an ad that is not misleading in any way--for example, just a poster with the product logo or a non-informational tag line ("Coke: It's A Beverage!"), there is no need for a disclaimer that I'm aware of.

What prevents me from using vehicle anti-theft laws to regain possession of an impounded car in Maryland?

My car was impounded in MD due to expired tags. I've since paid the state and county fines for this, but the county police use a private impound lot which charges exorbitant fees for storage. MD law gives county officials the right to take possession of a car for unpaid fines, and authorizes them to contract the service to a third party. However, since paying the fine, the county is no longer in possession of the vehicle, the towing company is. MD vehicle antitheft law states "A person may not take a vehicle without the consent of the owner of the vehicle and with the intent to deprive the owner temporarily of the owner's possession of the vehicle, even if without the intent to steal the vehicle." What exactly prevents me from using this antitheft law to regain possession of the car without paying? (I realize this argument would not hold up in court, I'm just curious about exactly why that is)

For starters, you can't "use the antitheft law" because you are not a criminal prosecutor. I'm not sure that the criminal statute would support a civil action for replevin , at least until you've paid all the fees that the towing company is explicitly authorized to charge and they still refuse to release the vehicle. And if that was the case, you wouldn't need the criminal statute — the title to your vehicle should be sufficient. See Baltimore County Code (2003) §18-2-203 for the police department's authority to remove and store cars with expired registration "by contract." See also §§ 21-16-111.1 et seq. and §§21-16-123 et seq. regarding police initiated towing and licensing of towing companies. The latter set of statutes and the fee schedule fixed by the county are available here .

Covenants against contingent fees

In which cases can and cannot contracts (like concession rights) be negotiated with the Government via a middleman? I.e., when can a company hire a consulting agent to help negotiate with the government? I'm not looking for the US only cases. Any country. I'm interested in mining or infrastructure concessions primarily. Am I correct that "covenant against contingent fees" almost prohibits that practice in the US?

In the US context, it sounds like you're asking about 42 CFR 52.203-5 ("Covenant Against Contingent Fees"). In that context, contingent fees means something close to payment of a commission to someone working as a broker, salesperson, negotiator or in a similar role. The rule applies to contracts under 41 USC §254(a) as well as bid procurements regulated by FAR §§ 3.400 and 3.403. There are exceptions to the prohibition, including for external agents, but even where it is applies it would not forbid simple use of a 'middleman' — it just prohibits that agent from being compensated by commission on the deal. The idea is to prevent agents with "improper influence" (or claimed influence) from being paid by commission, or having their fixed payment conditioned on closing the deal. This publication from Venable provides more details on the specifics and the exceptions.

"Reverse Engineering" a plain text file format

If a file output from a non-open source program is stored in plain text. What legal implications are there for building a parser to read that file into my program? Is there any legal distinction between one that is plain text vs binary vs encrypted?

Affirmative authority that this particular use (incorporation of the format of another program's textual data files into your own program) is protected is somewhat elusive in the US system; however there's a lot of observable evidence that reverse engineering data file formats without a license is widespread. My sense is that this would be analyzed under the same rubric as other kinds of reverse engineering and/or fair use. I'm sure there are others here who are better able to clearly and concisely explain that law than I am. However there may be limits — it seems Microsoft was able to prevent VirtualDub's use of the ASF format by patenting it . That said, it's hard to see how an unencrypted, unencoded ASCII data file file could be patentable (i.e. where the ASCII strings are the data, generated in response to user input, and the format is just their order and separators, etc). For the European arena, there is recent authority in SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Limited that the format of a program's data files are not protected by copyright when reverse engineered without the source code. The following is from the digest and application of the CJEUs decision by the English court that referred it, in its subsequent judgment: The judgment of the CJEU On 29 November 2011 Advocate General Bot delivered his Opinion on the questions referred... Questions 1-5 The Court dealt with these questions together. It interpreted this court as asking "in essence, whether Article 1(2) of [the Software Directive] must be interpreted as meaning that the functionality of a computer program and the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and may, as such, be protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that directive": see [29]. Having referred to recital (14), Article 1(1) and 1(2) of the Software Directive, Article 2 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Articles 9(2) and 10(1) of TRIPS, the Court went on: ... 39. [...] it must be stated that, with regard to the elements of a computer program which are the subject of Questions 1–5, neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program for the purposes of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/250. 40. As the Advocate General states in point 57 of his Opinion, to accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development. 41. Moreover, point 3.7 of the explanatory memorandum to the Proposal for Directive 91/250 [COM(88) 816] states that the main advantage of protecting computer programs by copyright is that such protection covers only the individual expression of the work and thus leaves other authors the desired latitude to create similar or even identical programs provided that they refrain from copying. 42. With respect to the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program to interpret and execute application programs written by users and to read and write data in a specific format of data files, these are elements of that program by means of which users exploit certain functions of that program. 43. In that context, it should be made clear that, if a third party were to procure the part of the source code or the object code relating to the programming language or to the format of data files used in a computer program, and if that party were to create, with the aid of that code, similar elements in its own computer program, that conduct would be liable to constitute partial reproduction within the meaning of Article 4(a) of Directive 91/250. 44. As is, however, apparent from the order for reference, WPL did not have access to the source code of SAS Institute's program and did not carry out any decompilation of the object code of that program. By means of observing, studying and testing the behaviour of SAS Institute's program, WPL reproduced the functionality of that program by using the same programming language and the same format of data files. 45. The Court also points out that the finding made in paragraph 39 of the present judgment cannot affect the possibility that the SAS language and the format of SAS Institute's data files might be protected, as works, by copyright under Directive 2001/29 if they are their author's own intellectual creation (see Bezpecnostní softwarová asociace, paragraphs 44 to 46). 46. Consequently, the answer to Questions 1–5 is that Article 1(2) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and, as such, are not protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that directive." Regarding the idea that the user has rights to access their output of a program held in a proprietary data file format there is some additional discussion in the that might be helpful in paragraphs 48 - 62 (of the CJEU opinion), discussing the right of a licensee to 'study and observe' the 'underlying' 'ideas and principles' of a program to accomplish 'acts of loading and running necessary for the use of the computer program.'

SEC Form D: Who are the investors?

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires the filing of a Form D "to offer and sell securities without having to register the offering with the SEC." This is commonly used to allow privately help companies to raise capital from venture capital and angel investors. Form D filings are public, and available from the SEC's EDGAR database or from various third parties who attempt to make the data more user-friendly and useful, a great example of which is Rank and Filed . Having looked through these filings, the question arises: where and how do news sources (such as VentureWire or the Venture Capital Dispatch) discover who the investors are in any given private offering? This data isn't listed on Form D as far as I can tell (only the total number of investors).

Typically in a venture investment the lead investor will get to nominate someone to the board. Since this is done at the closing of the investment, the name of the new director will appear with those of the other board members in the "related parties" section of the Form D. With some detective work (a.k.a. Google), you can figure out which venture fund the new director works for and by implication the likely lead investor.

SEC Form D: Who are the investors?

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires the filing of a Form D "to offer and sell securities without having to register the offering with the SEC." This is commonly used to allow privately help companies to raise capital from venture capital and angel investors. Form D filings are public, and available from the SEC's EDGAR database or from various third parties who attempt to make the data more user-friendly and useful, a great example of which is Rank and Filed . Having looked through these filings, the question arises: where and how do news sources (such as VentureWire or the Venture Capital Dispatch) discover who the investors are in any given private offering? This data isn't listed on Form D as far as I can tell (only the total number of investors).

In a Form D filing , the full text of the filing lists the number of Documents (in this case 1), and then Document Format Files . That formatted document includes an Issuer and Related Parties . The Related Party (In this case Galen Vinter) is the investor.

Big corporation in the UK, Intellectual Property and a Contract

I've recently been offered a job at a large technology corporation based in the UK. I've yet to sign the contract but I found something in it which concerns me. Intellectual property, ideas and inventions Any Ideas or Inventions you have or make or any Materials that you create or develop in the course of your employment with us and/or using our equipment or materials will (subject to the provisions of the Patents Act 1977 and Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) automatically, on creation of the same, be the absolute property of the Company. By signing this contract you’re agreeing to take all actions required by the Company to protect the Invention or Idea or Materials and to pass ownership to the Company. You also agree to waive all of your moral rights under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. Ideas include (without limit) patents, domain names, trademarks (whether registerable or not), designs, utility models, copyright or any applications made for these and the right to apply for them in any part of the world. Inventions include (without limitation) any discoveries, creations, inventions or improvements and/or additions to an invention (whether patentable or not and whether or not recorded in any medium), confidential information, know how, business names, moral rights and any similar rights in any country. Materials include (without limit) any documents, designs or computer programs on any media. Does this mean, once I sign the contract, while working under this company all my ideas are owned by the company? I would have thought any ideas or works I create while using their equipment would be theirs but things created on my own time using my own equipment would be mine. Does this mean my ideas are all owned by the company I will be working for? If that's the case I'm very concerned. And if it is the case is this considered the norm for contracts with large technology companies?

The UK Government released an article last year that explains some of the issues relating to ownership of copyright This article is informative. The headline point: Ownership of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic and film works created by an employee during the course of their employment, automatically vests in their employer by virtue of section 11(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The meaning of during the course of their employment has been interpreted by the courts to mean during the course of normal or specifically assigned duties, and that these duties include the creation of intellectual property for the employer. Patents are similarly affected - if the role does not specify or would not imply the creation of patents and other IP, it may not vest in the company automatically. This is a standard clause and is designed to protect the interests of the company, in the event that you create intellectual property as part of your role. Bear in mind here that there's no real need for this property to be created during work hours. That is, if part of your role is to design new software, ownership of that software vests in the company, whether you spent substantial amounts of work hours making it or not. Conversely, if your role does not include, or would be expected to include, the creation of intellectual property, then if you do so - even if it is during work hours - ownership may not necessarily vest in the company. IP you create in the course of your employment will vest in the company in the course of your employment will probably mean: if you are employed to create IP generally, all any IP resulting from your work, or; if you are employed to create a specific work, that work and possibly related works. This is a fairly standard clause, for most companies - I have had several jobs (though none of them technology-related) and they all include some clause to this effect

Can I protect myself against misused funds if i invest in a self employed person's project?

If I invest a sum of money to a self employed individual for their project can I sue them for the return of the investment if they meet the following general points: can't or won't show me what they've used the funds for can't or won't show me progress that has been made, and seem to be living extravagantly What is the risk that the funds can being used for personal indulgences instead of the earmarked project by a self employed individual?

The first thing you need to do is establish if the arrangement that you have with the person is a contract or not. In summary a contract requires: Intention to create legal relations. Note: social and family agreements are presumed not to have this intention. If you have given money to a friend or relation, then the onus is on you to show that you both intended to be legally bound; otherwise the money is legally a gift. Agreement Consideration Legal Capacity Genuine Consent Legality of Objects If you do not have a contract then your best course of action is to write the money off and get on with your life. If you do have a contract then, depending on the amount of money, your best course of action may be to write the money off and get on with your life. If you decide not to do this then you need to determine what the terms of the contract are. That is, what did you agree to do and when and what did they agree to do and when. If you do not have these written down in a signed document then your best course of action is to write the money off and get on with your life. Verbal contracts are as legally binding as written ones but it is a bugger to determine what was actually agreed. If you can determine what the terms of the contract are; has the other person broken any of them? For example, unless the contract says they must: show you what they've used the funds for show you the progress that has been made, and not live extravagantly (this would possibly be void term anyway for uncertainty or meaninglessness) then they do not have to! If they have (or there is a reasonable belief that they will) breach the contract then you can: Affirm that the contract continues Terminate the contract Repudiate the contract (i.e. there never was a contract) Seek an order for Specific Performance Seek an injunction Seek damages

Big corporation in the UK, Conflicts of Interest and a Contract

I've recently been offered a job for a large technology corporation in the UK. I've asked another question here about IP but also have a question on Conflicts of Interest I'd thought I'd ask separately. I'm technically a director of a company which is not currently trading (and I've not taken any pay from). I'm worried that this might be problematic with my soon to be employer. In the contract it states: Conflict of interests You mustn’t be involved either directly or indirectly with any other trade or business competing in or conflicting with the interests of our Company. If you want to be involved with another business whilst working for us then you’ll need to get a letter from the Director of your area confirming that they’re happy for you to do this. We understand that many people make investments for the future and you’ll not be prohibited from being a holder or owner of any stocks and shares as long as they’re listed on the stock exchange and you don’t hold more than 4% of the total share or loan capital of another Company. ... I set up the company I'm a director of as a side project and I am fine with resigning from it. Is me being a director of my side-project company a problem here? My side-project company and the one I've got a job offer from, are only related in such that they are both technology based but otherwise are unrelated.

Critique I'm technically a director of a company ... You either are or you aren't - there is no "technically" involved. ... is not currently trading ... And doing nothing can create a conflict of interest? How? You mustn’t be involved either directly or indirectly with any other trade or business competing in or conflicting with the interests of our Company. "competing or conflicting" is the key here - if the "other trade or business" can adversely affect the performance of your employer then you have a conflict, if not, you don't. are only related in such that they are both technology based but otherwise are unrelated. Sorry, but that is so vague as to be totally useless - what company today is not "technology based"? Pharmaceutical companies are technology based, so are construction companies, so are law firms but one would hardly call them "related". Solution Conflicts of interest are easy: If you don't think you have a conflict of interest and they don't think you have a conflict of interest then you don't have a conflict of interest. If either or both of you do; then you do. Tell them about it! Conflicts of interest are a problem because people think that if you are keeping secrets then you are doing it for a nefarious purpose! In 90% of cases declaring the potential conflict resolves the conflict because the other party says "That! Don't be silly; that's not a problem!" or words to that effect. In the 99.9% of the remaining 10% of cases then sensible people can come up with sensible solutions, for example: If you want to be involved with another business whilst working for us then you’ll need to get a letter from the Director of your area confirming that they’re happy for you to do this.

Big corporation in the UK, Conflicts of Interest and a Contract

I've recently been offered a job for a large technology corporation in the UK. I've asked another question here about IP but also have a question on Conflicts of Interest I'd thought I'd ask separately. I'm technically a director of a company which is not currently trading (and I've not taken any pay from). I'm worried that this might be problematic with my soon to be employer. In the contract it states: Conflict of interests You mustn’t be involved either directly or indirectly with any other trade or business competing in or conflicting with the interests of our Company. If you want to be involved with another business whilst working for us then you’ll need to get a letter from the Director of your area confirming that they’re happy for you to do this. We understand that many people make investments for the future and you’ll not be prohibited from being a holder or owner of any stocks and shares as long as they’re listed on the stock exchange and you don’t hold more than 4% of the total share or loan capital of another Company. ... I set up the company I'm a director of as a side project and I am fine with resigning from it. Is me being a director of my side-project company a problem here? My side-project company and the one I've got a job offer from, are only related in such that they are both technology based but otherwise are unrelated.

If your side project company is not competing with your employer then it should be fine. In any event, you can always apply for a "letter from the Director of your area confirming that they’re happy for you to" continue to be involved with that company. If they are truly unrelated, your director should have no trouble giving you such a letter.

What is "unjust enrichment?"

What is unjust enrichment under the law? It's understandable if associated with liability for wrongdoing. Apparently, this is not a necessary condition. How does it operate independently of liability for wrongdoing?

Unjust enrichment is an equitable theory of recovery that provides a fallback, for lack of better words, avenue of recovery for situations where no contract actually exists between two parties, but one party has received a benefit. The classic example is: Jane hires Dan to mow her lawn and tells him where her house is. Dan mistakenly mows Bob's lawn next door. Dan has no contract to mow Bob's lawn, but Bob has been unjustly enriched based on Dan having mowed his lawn. In this case Dan would have an equitable claim of unjust enrichment against Bob for the value of his yard services mistakenly provided Bob. In sum, any time someone receives the benefit from someone else's efforts, where the one providing the benefit mistakenly provides those services in good-faith, the one receiving the benefit has been unjustly enriched.

Is it legal to program a published game for educational purposes (and put the source code on GitHub)?

I own a card game that I enjoy playing (not a playing card game using a standard 52-card deck). I enjoy it enough that I thought it'd be fun to write a program (complete with AI!) that plays that game. Is this legal? Furthermore, may I publish the source code to a public website such as GitHub without incurring any legal issues? Assuming it's illegal for me to do this, at what point does doing this become legal? I likely cannot simply change all the names of the various cards to something else, right? If I start changing the rules of the game, does that make it legal for me to share my source code, for instance? It'd be a game that's heavily inspired by the original, but isn't (different rules, different cards, different amounts even).

If any elements of the game are protected by copyright, then you cannot reproduce those elements ( 17 U.S.C. §106 ) unless your reproduction falls under a fair use exception ( 17 U.S.C. §107 ). Elements that may be protected by copyright include: artwork specific language on each card the aggregate effects of the cards (i.e. copying a single card's effects might not infringe copyright, but if you copy the effect of a bunch of the cards, such that you are taking expression of the original author's creativity, that might infringe, even if you change the words used) Whether an element of the game is protected by copyright is a fact-intensive question that would depend on the specifics of the game. Whether your copy infringes is likewise a fact-intensive question that would depend on what you copy. Fair use is also a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis, but in my opinion, it is likely that creating a computer program derivative work ( 17 U.S.C. §101 ) of the game for your own personal education would be considered fair use. From a practical standpoint, even if it were not fair use, it would be near impossible for the copyright owner to discover. Posting the code on GitHub tips the scales away from fair use because of ( 17 U.S.C. §107(4) ): " the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. " But, none of the factors are determinative on their own. You ask: I likely cannot simply change all the names of the various cards to something else, right? I agree. In my opinion, the selection and arrangement of the effects attributed to each card is an expression of the author's creativity, and no matter what you call the cards, copyright in the game would be implicated if you retained the effects associated with each card. If I start changing the rules of the game, does that make it legal for me to share my source code, for instance? At some point, it will be an entirely different game, so certainly, in the limit, your work would not be infringing. We can't answer where that line is, but in general, the less of the original author's creativity that you re-use, the less likely a ruling of infringement. Also, in general, the more transformative your work is, the more likely a fair use exception would apply.

What legal liability does one's participation on Stack Exchange carry?

This question is motivated by a question which came up recently on engineering.SE: Cracks on the wall . It may be closed in the future so I will summarize. The user posted pictures of (very large) cracks in the wall of his house and asked the community "could you please advice to do continue the construction as per proper standard or I have demolish the house and re-built again?" A professional engineer advising this individual under the auspices of a hired firm would have certain legal obligations to the correctness of their opinion. If one were to advise this individual in a way that led to him living in an unsafe structure on Stack Exchange, what legal repercussions could they face? In particular, is there any legal precedent (read prior court case) which absolves freely offered online advice from liability?

I imagine that under English and Welsh law, the relevant tort would negligent misstatement, as there is no contract between the parties. From Practical Law : A claim for negligent misstatement may arise whether or not a contractual relationship exists between the parties. However, if there is a contractual relationship, it is more likely that a claim would be brought for negligent misrepresentation. Whether or not a claim for negligent misstatement would succeed would depend on several factors. Firstly, a duty of care must exist between the parties. From the Oxford Dictionary of Law : A negligent misstatement is only actionable in tort if there has been breach of a duty to take care in making the statement that has caused damage to the claimant. There is no general duty of care in making statements, particularly in relation to statements on financial matters. Responsibility for negligent misstatements is imposed only if they were made in circumstances that made it reasonable to rely on them ( Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 (HL); Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL). Whether or not it was reasonable to rely on the advice is hard to say, as it depends on a number of different factors. In the light of the fact that most cases of negligent misstatement involve professionals acting in their professional capacity, it seems unlikely that a court would find it reasonable to rely on advice taken from an internet site. Most relevant for this question, however, is the case of Gary Patchett and Karen Patchett v Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 717. This is possibly the legal precedent you are looking for. Practical Law again: The Court of Appeal held by a majority that, although the website made representations that it knew users would be likely to rely on, there was not sufficient proximity between the parties, and the website advised users to obtain an information pack before engaging a contractor. Accordingly, the appellants had failed to establish the duty of care that is a required element of a claim for negligent misstatement. If a website owner does not owe a duty of care to its users, then it seems highly unlikely that one user would be found to owe a duty of care to another user. On that basis - and with the large disclaimer that I am not a lawyer - it would seem that were one to rely on the advice given on a StackExchange site, there would be few, if any, legal repercussions for the person who gave the advice. The conclusion is to get professional advice from a professional, rather than any StackExchange site - including this one!

What legal liability does one's participation on Stack Exchange carry?

This question is motivated by a question which came up recently on engineering.SE: Cracks on the wall . It may be closed in the future so I will summarize. The user posted pictures of (very large) cracks in the wall of his house and asked the community "could you please advice to do continue the construction as per proper standard or I have demolish the house and re-built again?" A professional engineer advising this individual under the auspices of a hired firm would have certain legal obligations to the correctness of their opinion. If one were to advise this individual in a way that led to him living in an unsafe structure on Stack Exchange, what legal repercussions could they face? In particular, is there any legal precedent (read prior court case) which absolves freely offered online advice from liability?

The law is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction. Assuming that we are dealing with a common-law country like Australia, the UK or the US then liability can arise from three sources: the contract, statutory liability and the tort of negligence. Contract Well, no valuable consideration was made for the advice so there is no contract. Statute There may be laws in the relevant jurisdiction (which could be the jurisdiction of the asker, the answerer, the site (virtual or actual) or any/all of these) which impose a liability on the answerer. If this is an obligation to be read into a contract then see above. If this is a duty owed to the State, then it would generally be for the state to prosecute either criminally or civilly. It may be a breach of a code of ethics of the professional's association; in some jurisdictions this may be a mandatory code with civil or criminal penalties, in others a matter for the association alone. It is possible for the statute to work the other way and protect the advice giver - various Good Samaritan type Acts do this for people rendering medical aid at the scene of an accident for example. Negligence In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: had a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. I would say: is certainly arguable - by choosing to answer the professional may be accepting a duty, will be a matter of fact and degree - did the professional conform to the required standard of conduct , specifically, what is a reasonable standard of conduct given the nature of the forum; on the face of it this would appear to be lower then, say, a paid commission, there would need to be a nexus between the advice offered and the harm caused, and Something bad has to actually happen. In light of my own answer: Disclaimer: The above advice is general in nature and may not be relied upon for any purpose.

What legal liability does one's participation on Stack Exchange carry?

This question is motivated by a question which came up recently on engineering.SE: Cracks on the wall . It may be closed in the future so I will summarize. The user posted pictures of (very large) cracks in the wall of his house and asked the community "could you please advice to do continue the construction as per proper standard or I have demolish the house and re-built again?" A professional engineer advising this individual under the auspices of a hired firm would have certain legal obligations to the correctness of their opinion. If one were to advise this individual in a way that led to him living in an unsafe structure on Stack Exchange, what legal repercussions could they face? In particular, is there any legal precedent (read prior court case) which absolves freely offered online advice from liability?

This answer provides some highlight into this topic, but it is related only to Massachusetts (USA) PEs. For any other state or country, look up the rules. But it follows this: The MA PE board posted that the one of the Basis for Discipline is: (1) The Board may initiate disciplinary action against a Registrant or an unlicensed individual or entity on its own or upon written complaint of any individual who alleges violation of any law or regulation within the Board's jurisdiction, including but not limited to M.G.L. c. 112, §§ 61 through 65E, 81D through 81T and 250 CMR. (2) The Board may, after a consent agreement between the parties or an opportunity for adjudicatory proceedings conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, discipline a Registrant if it is determined that the Registrant has engaged in, without limitation to, the following types of conduct: (a) misconduct or any crime involving moral turpitude; fraud; deceit; incompetence; negligence; or exceeding the authorized scope of their registration; [ 1 ] MGL Chapter 112 Section 61 states that: A board of registration under the supervision of the division of professional licensure may discipline the holder of a license, certificate, registration or authority issued pursuant to this chapter or chapters 141 and 142 if it is determined, after a consent agreement between the parties or after an opportunity for an adjudicatory proceeding conducted pursuant to chapter 30A, that such holder has: (1) engaged in conduct which places into question the holder’s competence to practice the profession including, but not limited to, gross misconduct; practicing the profession fraudulently; practicing his profession beyond the authorized scope of his license, certificate, registration or authority; practicing the profession with gross incompetence; or practicing the profession with negligence on 1 or more than 1 occasion; That being said, the PE can be held liable for any thing they recommend, espiclially if it is well documented, and it clearly states that their recommendation is really wrong. For the above example, where the SE user asked about cracks in the wall - I would sound an opinion, but would suggest to go and seek an in-person inspection. Especially that later on on MGL 126/61 it is stated that the board commite is not limited: Nothing in this section shall be deemed a limitation on a board’s authority to impose such reasonable sanctions as it deems appropriate by the board after a hearing or by a consent agreement. A person sanctioned under this section shall be subject to such other sanctions or punishment provided by law. The boards shall promulgate such rules and regulations not inconsistent with chapter 30A as necessary for the filing of charges and the conduct of proceedings. Lastly, if you are an engineer, be responsbile for what you claim, some stuff can hurt, others can kill. Be careful in what you recommend and in what you offer. I am not a lawyer, but am an engineer. I wouldn't recommend that guy to live in that house anyhow, because to me it looks unsafe. But hey, it is only my opinion, and take on it...