|
Will the website just copy the design of Party X, or would it give the impression that the user is dealing with Party X when they are not? If it's just the design, they will probably get away with it, as I doubt Party X would care enough to take legal action. If the websites deceives users as to who they are dealing with, then there is a whole laundry list of offenses that your company could be guilty of, and people could absolutely go to jail over it. I would document absolutely everything, store it where the company can't control it, and report this to the RCMP.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
The new site for ClientA copies the PartyX website almost word for word and the design changes only slightly. They even use the same logo. The only difference is the company name, contact info and locations and you cleary know you are not dealing with PartyX, so I guess it is a non-issue. It is still unethical as gently caress though. Thanks for the info, Konstantin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
^^^ Even still, if ClientA is attempting to pass themselves off as PartyX - or to mislead customers in some other way - that might still constitute fraud and open you to criminal and civil liability. Fraud is both a crime and a tort in civil law. I'm not familiar with the civil aspect this at all, but I know that it is very complicated and that involves potentially complex intellectual property issues. As a business engaged in web design you should really retain intellectual property lawyers and/or commercial lawyers to map out these issues for you. As far as the criminal side of things goes, fraud is a very complex crime and would absolutely require a lawyer to evaluate the specific facts of your case. Well, any crime that involves jail time, and hell, any Criminal Code offence, should be evaluated by a lawyer who practices in your jurisdiction. Typically, I think this sort of case would also be handled by your commercial lawyers. As a piece of legal information, you should understand that if ClientA is attempting to commit fraud and you assist them in this, under Canadian criminal law you could likely be a party to that crime and could be held liable to all of the same penalties as the principle offender. If you suspect that they might be committing a crime this can constitute knowledge of the commission of that crime, particularly if you fail to take reasonable steps to investigate. This can be true even, as might be the case here, if the principle offender is outside the jurisdiction of the court in question. If you suspect that somebody may be committing a crime and that they may be attempting to use you as accessory to that crime it is incumbent upon you to, at minimum, seek legal counsel. Fraud is a very serious crime and carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. This is not to mention the untold potential for civil liability. Don't fool around with this poo poo. P.S. I am not a lawyer; I am not your lawyer. I am a law student in Ontario, everything here could be wrong. This is not legal advice, this is legal information. Seek independent legal counsel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
Hi. I've been lurking on the boards for some time now, and finally have something to post about! My husband has been working at a company (we'll call it company B) as a contractor through another company (company L) for the past six months. The place where he works (as a contractor), company B, is changing their service model and have decided to use only one contracting company -- Company P. My husband interviewed for his same position with Company P and waited to hear about an offer. This was the same for all contractors in his department. Upon hearing that they are losing their contracts, his contracting company (company L) emailed him to say they'd help him find another position, but were in talks to let Company P buy out his current contract. Until today, he had not heard about any other employment opportunities through Company L. Fast forward to this past week and he is told that if he accepts the offer from company P, his current one will take legal action since there was a non-compete clause in the contract he signed with them. They are now sending him out for interviews. There are about 12 people in his department that work for this company and some have already accepted the offer with Company P, hoping that the old one will not pursue legal action. We are in Pittsburgh, PA. No legal action has been taken yet. He has 48 hours to accept the offer from Company P. Otherwise, he loses his job on October 31st provided Company L cannot find him other employment in the mean time. My question is how binding is the non-compete in this situation? He did not actively look for employment with another company, but was told he had to accept an offer from Company P if he wanted to continue to work company B. I'm told from several people that non-competes are rarely enforced in PA and no judge would prevent him from working. Is this true?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
Without responding specifically to your question: non-competes can be and are enforced in PA. The thing a judge usually looks for is 1. was it bargained for/was there consideration 2. is it reasonable in geographic scope 3. is it reasonable in time. I can't apply any of that to your facts though, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
Ah, okay. The non-compete in the contract specifically states for one year after terminating employment with company L. No geographic limitation is imposed. Although there is a statement about specifically working for a company where Company L has a contract. Do you know what the usual penalty is if a judge were to rule in Company L's favor?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
I am talking in general here, not about your specific facts: Usually a company sues and asks for damages or an injunction to get the person to stop working. I am pretty sure injunctions are rare. Penalties are only for misdemeanors and crimes. It is not a crime to violate a non-compete, unless there is a court order forbidding you to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
Thank you for the feedback/insight. I appreciate it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
Gleri posted:potential legal issues Wow, I will definitely let my boss know the potential implications of this. Hopefully he calls his lawyer to get some advice as a result. I have always been confused about laws regarding websites and web content. Googling the subject brings up lots of results, but it can be a daunting task trying to sort it all out to see which stuff is relevant. This thread has opened my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
A bit of a ridiculous legal question, but here it is: My girlfriend was recently turned away from a hair salon for a hair colouring treatment, as the salon told her due to her psoriasis (v minor on her arms) and a "new law" relating to it, they cannot perform the treatment. I'm in England, UK. Could anyone verify whether this "new law" exists or if the salon was bullshitting, and if so what would she need to quote to them to get them to prove she knows they're loving around with her? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 11:09
|
|
|
Rebus posted:A bit of a ridiculous legal question, but here it is: What's the real story here? Because right now the correct response to your girlfriend is "get over it." Your girlfriend doesn't need to prove she knows they are loving around with her, she just needs to schedule an appointment elsewhere. Now, if several salons start saying the same thing, then it's worth looking into.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 13:10
|
|
|
If they actually refused service to her on account of a physical disability, where I come from you would have recourse to a human rights tribunal. Nothing would come of it, but if her feelings are hurt and/or she wants to hassle the salon for being jerkoffs I might look into whether such a tribunal exists in your area and what its jurisdiction is Also quote of the day for the thread: "if you're refused service on arbitrary and discriminatory grounds,'just get over it'"
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:If they actually refused service to her on account of a physical disability, where I come from you would have recourse to a human rights tribunal. Nothing would come of it, but if her feelings are hurt and/or she wants to hassle the salon for being jerkoffs I might look into whether such a tribunal exists in your area and what its jurisdiction is The girlfriend has "very minor" psoriasis on her arms. Here in the US, there is no way that rises to the level of a physical disability, so this is hardly a case of refusing service on discriminatory grounds. Arbitrary, yes, but there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe very minor psoriasis constitutes a physical disability in the UK, but I would be incredibly surprised if that were the case. I never said that people should "just get over" discrimination, don't straw man me like that. (And suggesting that the girlfriend go to the local tribunal, for the purpose of hassling the salon even though nothing would come of it, is pretty crappy for all of the people who legitimately need the tribunal's attention and efforts.) entris fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Sep 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 16:13
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, but I can give some perspective on behalf of the salon. My first career was as an aethetician, and worked in salons with hairdressers. Psoriasis can be a problem for salon workers. Some of the treatments leave the skin paper thin and very fragile. I often refused to do waxing on clients with psoriasis, as there was a chance I could actually wax their skin off, along with the hair. Hairdressers have the same problem with hair colour. If you're already sensitive, there is a higher chance you'll react to the chemicals badly. It's a judgement call by the stylist, they're just limiting their own liability.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies, chaps. I'm sure she'll get over it so I'll just put up with her grumbling for now!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 18:46
|
|
|
I applied for a court appointed attorney but was denied due to "Jail not likely". It was a misdemeanor traffic offense. Is there a way I can appeal this decision or do I just have to try and find a cheap attorney somehow?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
ganglysumbia posted:I applied for a court appointed attorney but was denied due to "Jail not likely". Probably not. There is no federal right to a court-appointed attorney in your situation. Some states would give you an attorney for this, but based on the denial I'm guessing your state isn't one of them. Go find an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
ganglysumbia posted:I applied for a court appointed attorney but was denied due to "Jail not likely".
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
My wife was recently sued for custody by her ex husband. He filed the papers and used her old name. She has legally taken my name. Does she file with the old name or the new name or is there a special way to list both? The jurisdiction is California.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
ganglysumbia posted:I applied for a court appointed attorney but was denied due to "Jail not likely". You can mostly likely call your local Bar Association and talk to a local attorney for 30 mins for like $50.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
Should be sleeping posted:My wife was recently sued for custody by her ex husband. He filed the papers and used her old name. She has legally taken my name. Does she file with the old name or the new name or is there a special way to list both? The jurisdiction is California.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
Custody is not a simple thing and get hairy, fast. Especially when the other side lawyers up and you are sitting there derping around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 03:39
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:I'm not a lawyer but I've read almost all of this thread and the one before it. I can virtually guarantee that since the word "custody" appeared in your post, the lawgoons' responses are generally going to begin with "Your wife should talk to her lawyer about..." You're right on this one. She needs a family lawyer yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
Believe me, we're saving for an attorney, will be able to get that in a few months, however in the mean time we are filing papers with the help of the local legal clinic, and we were wondering on the forms we're filing with the courthouse tomorrow if she has to put her current legal last name on the response forms, or is there a certain way of listing it officially, like nee , except for a married name. edit: We're not "derping", we're just broke and have to rough it ourselves until we save up the $3500 retainer fee. Should be sleeping fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Sep 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
I have a legitimate prescription for Adderall for my ADHD. If i am offered a job position and were to take a urine drug test, would bringing my prescription and/or a letter from my doctor to the drug testing center obscure the results of the presence of Adderall in my system from my prospective employer? Is my prospective employer required to know that I take ADHD medication? Thanks.
online fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Sep 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
online posted:I have a legitimate prescription for Adderall for my ADHD. If i am offered a job position and were to take a urine drug test, would bringing my prescription and/or a letter from my doctor to the drug testing center obscure the results of the presence of Adderall in my system from my prospective employer? Is my prospective employer required to know that I take ADHD medication? Thanks. They're looking for illegal drugs, not Adderall. But, if you're really worried, bring your prescription to the test. The fact that you're on ADHD medicine should not be relevant or released to your prospective employer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 09:36
|
|
|
nm posted:What state are you in? Michigan. I really don't want two points on my license and a misdemeanor on my clean record all for bypassing a weigh station. The lawyers I have talked to simply want more than my broke student rear end can afford.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 11:49
|
|
|
A $3500 retainer for a custody case sounds completely outrageous. But I don't know your locality so it may be normal. My instinct is you could find an attorney whose retainer, if any, would be 1/10th of that. You should be able to talk to an attorney for 30 mins for like $50 through a local bar referral service.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 12:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:A $3500 retainer for a custody case sounds completely outrageous. But I don't know your locality so it may be normal. My instinct is you could find an attorney whose retainer, if any, would be 1/10th of that. You should be able to talk to an attorney for 30 mins for like $50 through a local bar referral service. I am curious which locality has divorce attorneys that ask $350 retainers for contested custody cases. Should be sleeping posted:Believe me, we're saving for an attorney, will be able to get that in a few months, however in the mean time we are filing papers with the help of the local legal clinic, and we were wondering on the forms we're filing with the courthouse tomorrow if she has to put her current legal last name on the response forms, or is there a certain way of listing it officially, like nee , except for a married name. Several options spring to mind: 1) You could ask the local legal clinic how to handle the erroneous name issue. 2) Your wife can call a court clerk, explain she's pro per, and ask if she needs to do anything special when filing her response. 3) Alternately, ask someone from the legal clinic to call the court clerk. The clerk may be willing to give help to an attorney he or she might not to pro per caller. Does your clinic offer pro bono representation by any chance? Or maybe someone there could direct you an attorney who can at least give you some legal coaching (as opposed to taking on the case himself/herself)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 12:39
|
|
|
Well, I feel kind of like a dumbass, but I was reminded that my wife used to work as a legal transcriptionist, and is very familiar with this sort of thing. So she is taking her response over to the legal clinic to have them look it over before she serves it by mail. However I guess what she wants to do is just put this thing to bed, and with a decent attorney, the consensus we get on this issue seems to be that it wouldn't take a decent attorney very long to demolish this guy in court. As far as the retainer fee being steep, I know what you mean. But we've called quite a few places in Kern County, and that seems to be the standard fee, even for the so called "affordable" attorneys. If you guys can refer to somebody else that would start for less, let us know. We make enough money to afford a good lawyer, but our savings are poo poo because we just moved and used it to put money down on our new house. I'll explain the situation, half for the Jerry Springer value and half for the legal interpretation. Basically, the ex husband is an unemployed loafer. Unemployed, except for the weed he grows. He lives with his parents since he quit his job to avoid paying the $14,000 in child support arrears that he owes. In addition to that, the woman he cheated on my wife with lives there too, and so do their two kids, one of which was conceived during the time he was married to my wife(She left as soon as she found out he cheated). Oh, and his Sister lives there too. So including grandma, grandpa, deadbeat, dead-beats' partner, their two kids, and the sister, they have seven people living in a two bedroom, 1100 square foot house. He refuses to meet her halfway to pick up and drop off the kids, as per their agreement. They are supposed to meet halfway every other weekend. But when he was still giving excuses, he said he's too broke to drive. He also lost his license and can't drive because he refuses to get a job. The past three times that he did see his kids(which was last year), my wife had to drive the four hours there to drop them off. He's called them a total of 19 times between January and now. His phone is frequently disconnected, and the number changes often. He hasn't seen his kids since Christmas last year. The only time he's driven down here this year is when he forced his father to leave work at the taco stand(this was verified by my wife's friends up in their neighborhood) and drive his beat up pick up truck the four hours to serve my wife this asinine lawsuit. The bastard made his dad, who is very fond of my wife, serve the papers, and he hid around the corner. When I came to the door to see what was going on, that rear end in a top hat shot me crazy eyes, then ran full sprint back to to his dad's truck and hid around the other side. I feel bad for the old man. He apologized to my wife in Spanish, and then he told me in English to please take care of his grandkids, because their "dad isn't so good in the head right now." He's suing for full custody of both kids. His Motion to show cause was written in scrawled, barely legible handwriting. His complaint section is 2 pages, and doesn't follow coherently. Full of factual errors, run on sentences, and references to things like "being a real man" and "children in danger of becoming gay by being raised by a woman." The response my wife wrote, answering every one of his complaints, including correcting dates about when their marriage ended(supported with documentation) evidence, copies of phone records, bills for children's expenses, and all of the evidence to show that he is an irresponsible loser, is 18 pages in just the answer to the complaints in detail. We know he's digging his own grave by filing this. And we don't doubt that any reasonable judge would show us favor, but apparently he tries this every 2 or 3 years, and my wife is sick of it. Could this be ended? Could we terminate parental rights with a decent attorney? I have no problem adopting the kids legally, and I'm already a full time dad to them. Should be sleeping fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Sep 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
Should be sleeping posted:
I suggest you challenge this "real man" to a bout of fisticuffs. Winner takes the children.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
I think retainer practice is a regional / local thing. From my experience lawyers do not really talk to each other about how they specifically bill things (because of antitrust issues.) If Should be sleeping walked into my office I would not even make them pay a retainer because 1. They both have jobs and make good money and 2. They have a house.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
Should be sleeping posted:
*Generic advice not specific to jurisdiction or facts* There are generally two avenues for this kind of problem a) Termination of parental responsibility and b) Application for vexatious litigant relief. Both are always extremely high burdens to meet. To terminate parental rights you would need to prove active and real harm or risk of harm. To get a vexatious litigant order you would need to convince a judge that the purpose of the litigation was exclusively to harass your wife and had no merit whatsoever. Depending on how the hearing goes and just how pissed off the judge is with the ex-husband by the end of it, it might be an issue to raise as a query to the judge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Should be sleeping posted:
Oh hey I live in Kern County too. I'm on my phone and can't search but have a look through this thread for posts by Incredulous Red. I needed legal help a few months ago and he linked an organization that provides no cost legal help for qualifying families.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
I personally don't think a $3500 retainer is at all absurd for a contested custody case. For even a cheap attorney, that's like 15-20 hours of time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I think retainer practice is a regional / local thing. The amount and specific details---e.g., evergreen or not---would, sure, but I still have to admit scepticism in regard to there being many family law attorneys who take on custody cases without a retainer, whatever the amount. Speaking of amount, I'm with gvibes: $3,500 isn't unusual, at least in California. euphronius posted:If Should be sleeping walked into my office I would not even make them pay a retainer because 1. They both have jobs and make good money and 2. They have a house. Nothing against Should be sleeping, who I'm sure is upright and would pay his attorney, but in general, I don't think having a house or steady, well-paid employment necessarily matters. They are evidence of ability to pay, not inclination to do so. You have no way of knowing if a stranger will be an honest client or be the type to refuse to pay the balance due when the matter's ended, or the sort to hit you with a malpractice claim if you pursue what you're owed in court or via collections. If you're not working on contingency or pro bono, then a retainer just seems common sense. Granted, things may be different in your particular location, but I think what I wrote holds true for most legal markets in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
Yeah I guess it really is regional/local. Malpractice claims are exceedingly rare here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this deserves its own separate thread (or topic? maybe someone could point me to a more relevant one) but I need some opinions on what to do about a friend having trouble coming to visit me in America. This friend is Canadian, has never been arrested, no felony convictions and nothing that would otherwise raise a red flag for customs officials. Recently, they made a trip to Vegas and had no issues getting through customs on the way or way back. However, they recently tried to visit me in my state (CO) and were denied. My friend says that they denied entry on the basis that a company they do work online for is based in my state, and that there wasn't enough "proof that they wouldn't be working" or that they are a current student, despite having enrollment forms, a valid current passport, my contact information and my address and a return airline ticket (only 1 week later). My friend insisted repeatedly that the visit was for personal reasons only and had nothing to do with employment or work. They also had a receipt from the school bursar office showing payment being taken for class hours, but customs apparently said that wasn't good enough "because they could have cancelled the next day". Denied. At this point, I have no idea what else I/they can do. Did they just run into a gigantic rear end in a top hat customs official? Should they try to rebook a new trip and hope that there aren't any problems this time? Does anyone have any advice on what other avenues could be pursued here? How do you prove a negative - that someone is not coming to the country to work?  Should I contact an immigration lawyer, since the problem is with American customs, not Canadian? Should my friend? Just looking for some next steps here on what to try. ex post facho fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Sep 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:At this point, I have no idea what else I/they can do. Did they just run into a gigantic rear end in a top hat customs official? Should they try to rebook a new trip and hope that there aren't any problems this time? (not a lawyer) Sounds like your friend did run into an rear end in a top hat customs official. I wouldn't just retry an entry; I'd be shocked if the rejection wasn't recorded and wouldn't pop up the next time they try to enter the US, and if for basically the same trip, you'll probably get the same result. Friend is a Canadian citizen, and not a citizen of another nation who is residing in Canada? Have you/your friend tried contacting either the US Customs & Border Patrol (http://cbp.gov/) or the US Embassy in Canada (http://canada.usembassy.gov/)? That would be my first step. Your friend may be able to prove the personal nature of their trip while still in Canada and receive a redress number or the like to pass through customs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Thank you! I've made my friend aware of those two links so they know to reach out. Yes, this person is a Canadian citizen. What is a redress number?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 00:08
|
|