|
Anjow posted:I live in England. You were holding on what is called a shorthold assured tenancy, and when that expired, then assuming neither you or the landlord did anything to terminate the tenancy beforehand, you will have continued to hold on exactly the same terms under what's called a statutory tenancy. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets up this system. Strictly speaking, you don't need to keep re-signing a new tenancy every year with shorthold assured tenancies to remain a tenant on the same terms, although most landlords/agents will insist on going through the process if only so they can charge you an administrative fee for it. From what you say, it therefore sounds as if you should be giving one month's notice to end the tenancy from your side, since the landlord seems to have waived their notice and the tenancy is probably still in effect. In practice, you may get away with less provided you pay them the full rent for the month's notice period and any other rent owing, as although they will piss and moan about it, it's unlikely they'll waste time suing you for breach of the tenancy. After all, if you disappear overnight without giving notice, the landlord's main loss would be that rent. Still, it's at your own risk.
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:Nah they can't do anything like that, my mom isn't legally responsible for my debt. If American credit reference agencies are anything like British ones, they'll probably not be interested in anything that isn't a judgment against you in the jurisdiction, and as people have said, it's unlikely they'll come after you in the US over that amount of money. I mean, think of all the extra costs involved in having to research whether everyone who ever has a credit check might have a judgment against them in any other country in the world. It would be prohibitive. Your Mum should probably just ignore the letter, assuming that the "heavy guys literally turn up at the door looking for money" scenario isn't likely.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:It's up to the member nation to set the legal requirements for marriage and criminalizing polygamy. So we need to know your nation and setup (like MFFF or FFMMMM, etc). Depending on that info, you might be left with having to gently caress yourself, you combo-breaker. In the UK, it's bigamy and its illegal, if the multiple marrying is actually done in the jurisdiction. Polygamous marriages celebrated in countries where they are legal aren't criminalised, but they don't have legal status for most purposes (one exception is in claiming welfare benefits). It's fair to say that you don't hear a lot about the existence of multiple marriages in the UK even among minorities with traditional links to countries where they are legally recognised (e.g. many Muslims). I'm not sure about other EU countries, but I doubt there are any that actually allow for the celebration of polygamous marriages on their territory. You never know though...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
mookerson posted:College Park, MD I imagine the crisis has probably resolved itself now, but to be honest, this is why it's a really good idea to have a back-up heat source of some kind, like an plug-in electric heater, and spare blankets/duvets for the bed. Something similar once happened to me when my boiler was being repaired. I'm not an (American) lawyer, and it will come down to the exact terms of your lease, but I doubt any court anywhere would award you damages for your landlord and/or their workmen taking a few days over these repairs. If it was weeks or months you might have a case. Sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 12:01
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:If a RO was filed by a layperson on behalf of a corporation, that's unlawful practice of law, right? Would that be grounds for dismissal? Also contempt, I would assume. Things I don't know much about - US law, US employment practices, pharmacies and the regulation thereof. Things I do know - everyone I've ever dealt with who got involved in a legal dispute and wasn't legally represented at best ended up with a load of stress and hassle they didn't need and at worst got completely screwed. HIRE A LAWYER AND STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS, BEFORE YOU TALK YOURSELF INTO MORE TROUBLE.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I WAS going to ask what you guys do when someone is convinced that they're right, even though you're the one who went to law school. I have the advantage of working for a government department, not in private practice, so the usual answer for me is to say "Sorry, that's my decision on this, for the reasons I've given you. If you don't agree with the decision, you can have it judicially reviewed by the court. If you don't like the way we dealt with you, here's our complaints system, starting with my manager." Some of them complain, but they almost invariably disappear when my manager tells them that he's not upholding it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Hahahahahahahahah... You missed the crucial "...on the advice of my attorney, Leonard J. Crabs".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Bellagio Sampler posted:Hey I looked up libel on wikipedia and I still have no idea how it works. How would this hypothetical play out? For a start, libel is a tort, a civil wrong, not a criminal offence, so you would be getting sued for it, not convicted. In English law, there is a defence of justification against a claim for libel (i.e. arguing "it's not defamatory, it's true"), but the burden of proof lies on the defendant. You have to prove that what you said was true, so you'd be in about equal trouble in scenario B, scenario C or scenario D. Oh, and in England you don't have to prove financial loss to win damages for libel (you do for slander (mostly), which is why no-one sues for slander any more), so that point wouldn't matter. English libel law is famously claimant-friendly, to the extent that there's an ongoing campaign to get it reformed. But for the moment, we are the favoured forum for rich people trying to defend their reputation, to the point where (e.g.) Russian oligarchs will sue in London on the basis of a few copies of some obscure Russian magazine being sold here. General Panic fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Do you think that the legal process should be a metagame where if someone forgets to initial page 8 then you automatically win? A lot of laypeople do, in my experience. They'll find some minor flaw in a form or document and think that they've pulled a real  and are bound to win. But the reality is that courts and other decision makers inevitably have some kind of discretion to amend or ignore trivial procedural points where the justice in the case isn't affected by it.Those are also exactly the kind of people who end up fighting pointless disputes for years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:Get an attorney specializing in business associations to draw up a contract. Depending on how elaborate a store you plan on making it may be worthwhile to discuss with the attorney about forming a corporation to manage the production and sale of this product. Even if you trust the guy completely you still want a contract covering the business arrangement. An alternative would be a formal partnership agreement, but it all depends on the details of what you're planning to do. Every possible form of business organisation you could go for will have different advantages and disadvantages, which is why it's best to get legal advice tailored to your situation. Your friend would probably need to be advised by a separate lawyer if it comes to you drawing up an agreement of some kind. However, before spending any money on lawyers, it's probably wise to discuss with him whether he's interested and to make up your own mind whether you trust him enough to go into business with him.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:This is basically how every single real estate transaction ever goes. I'm not a Canadian lawyer, and so I can't comment on the specifics, but in the general sense of "some issue comes up about the physical state of/title to the property, one side says "this is really important, sort it out" and the other side says "No it's not, gently caress you"" this is pretty common. If your lawyer is an employee of a law firm, you can insist that one of the partners takes over, at the cost of (a) destroying your relationship with your lawyer (b) spending more money on a more expensive lawyer doing the job and (c) feeling an idiot if he decides to pursue the same strategy anyway. If she is a partner, or the firm is her, then there's no particular protocol about sacking your law firm if you don't mind burning bridges, but yet again, you may find the new firm just takes the same approach. I mean, how much more aggressive do you want than - "do this or we don't complete - and we'll insist on our deposit back"?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
insanityv2 posted:wouldn't this turn on the terms of the contract? As I see it, what she's trying to do is get everyone attending to sign up to something that says "I agree that I'm not carrying in any alcohol and that if I am, I agree you can sue me for your loss if the venue owner sues you over this." That's the only way I could see it working and, for evidence if nothing else, that probably would be best as a condition printed on the back of a ticket, although at a pinch you might get away with having a notice or something. I'm not an American lawyer, so I'm not guaranteeing something like that would actually stand up in court if you tried to pass any loss down the chain to the person who brought in the booze, and you have to factor in whether any of them would be worth suing if you got hit with some kind of financial penalty. I imagine the venue's main concern is not to breach the terms of its licence, so unless they actually get in trouble over that, they're unlikely to come after you for it in practice, even if the policy is breached.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:Dude, people become lawyers because they're the type of person who must win every conversation. Prove it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:Dude was uncertain that he was under arrest because his rights were never read, but nobody cares what he says since he was trashed. Hire friend's dad, who is an excellent criminal defense attorney, or roll with the court to possibly save $500? The young cop probably arrests people in similar circumstances on a regular basis, and it's unlikely he'll decide to pursue some kind of vendetta against this particular drunk.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
KneelBeforeZog posted:
IANAL (in the US, anyway) but if you have to evict her like a tenant, the sort of legal rules that stop you harassing tenants by doing things like turning off the water supply/electricity to make them leave might well apply here too. Also, why the hell would you want to turn off your own water supply and electricity? You could persuade your girlfriend to leave equally fast by burning down the house or running a bulldozer into it, but put like that it becomes obvious how ridiculous this "all out war" approach is. Things bought for $10 from a garage sale are going to be hotly contested? Do I need to check my privilege here, because to me that means "really cheap junk that probably isn't actually worth fighting over, certainly in court"? Most people I ever heard of when they split up just agree who gets what when it comes to those sorts of items, because they just arent't worth running up legal costs on. Basically, it would hugely help the situation if you and your girlfriend could act like adults about this, but something tells me things have gone way beyond that and you need proper advice from a lawyer about this ridiculous situation, and to stop expecting goons to do it for free.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 20:16
|
|
about dispute with girlfriend
|
Alchenar posted:Check his posts in this thread. (if you don't know how, you push the little question mark at the bottom left under his avatar).  Kneel Before Zog, at least no-one can call you inconsistent.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
SHUT UP MOM posted:I was pretty sure I was right that I shouldn't care and should tell them off, but I just wanted to be sure. I was pretty close to telling them off. This same unit has been a problem in my building. I'm on the condo association board in my small, 26 unit building. I have had complaints from the people below them and next to them, which are on file, along with complaints from myself as well (I know this sounds petty but this is just the way things need to be done to be escalated -- we have tried just talking to them for over 8 months now). Basically they leave their dogs alone a lot, and they constantly bark. The dogs sometimes get out and run in the hallways, and their kids run around and scream in the hallways. One also broke a stair when messing around with roller blades on (what the gently caress?). So, now I have to meet with the other two board members to decide who has to take all of this to the management company to basically start the process of getting them kicked out, since they only rent. From here they will get a letter saying to shape up in a month or you're out. These people are obviously bad neighbours, who probably realise that everyone's complaining about them, and are just trying to make a fuss about a trivial incident so they have some mud to sling back. I can't believe there's a court in the world that would take this seriously, so I would just tell them to get lost. Disclaimer - I am not your lawyer or legally qualified where you are etc., etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
Your contract wasn't with your friend though, it was with the theatre who supplied the tickets or possibly a secondary supplier who sold them on to you, and that will have been done on their usual terms and conditions (which most likely includes the refund policy). So if you can't comply with that, you aren't entitled to get your money back. They kept their side of the bargain by supplying a ticket for a seat. You couldn't take up the seat, of course, for reasons beyond your control, but that happens to people all the time. Your best bet is probably to contact the ticket supplier, explain the circumstances and ask them for a refund despite not meeting the usual requirements. You haven't got much of a legal leg to stand on if they decide to stand on their rights, but if you make enough of a fuss, in consumer situations, people will sometimes give you what you want just to get rid of you. E: Don't try to pull that one with your friend, by the way, whatever you think of how she acted. General Panic fucked around with this message at 19:45 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Venetir posted:Hey everyone! I have a question about presenting evidence in small claims court. I'm suing my ex-landlord over a whole slew of things. A great deal of evidence supporting my case is in the form of e-mails between the landlord and myself. I'm suing over a number of things we discussed, and due to the incoherent nature of my landlord, conversations about various things appear in replies to several different e-mails. For example, he was to replace some electronics damaged due to his negligence and he responds to this first in the e-mail about those electronics and again in another e-mail about sewage backing up into my apartment. Anyone reading the e-mails would have to read both for it to make any sense and we have a TON of e-mail. How should I present all of this so the judge's head doesn't explode? Should I compile the pertinent parts of each e-mail conversation into a document related to each separate point over which I'm suing him? If I do, should I provide another copy of the e-mails in their original, somewhat incoherent format? Not your lawyer, not an American lawyer, but I would make 3 points:- 1. Courts generally have written rules of procedure covering such issues as how evidence should be presented, and I would hazard a guess that would extend even to small claims courts which are designed to be less formal. As you don't have your own attorney, you'll need to find out what those rules are, either by asking court staff for some guidance/information or seeing if you can track down the relevant rules online or in a library. 2. Leaving aside the specific requirements of this court, a good practical way of presenting documentary evidence is to have a folder with the e-mails and any other documents you want to refer to in, printed out and with page numbers, and perhaps separated by dividers too. In English courts we refer to the court bundle, and a file of that kind usually what it boils down to. This allows you to refer to "the e-mail dated 2 June 2013 at p.3 of divider A in the bundle" in the documentation in which you set out the details of your claim, at least if it allows for that much detail, or in front of the judge when you present your case to him. BUT whether this format is advisable here depends on whether this court's procedural rules allow for it. 3. It's really impossible to tell you exactly how to complete the forms without seeing what they're like. Again, court staff may be able to give some guidance and presumably there are guidance notes on the forms themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
I think other posters have covered most of the detail as to the problems in this clause, really, but more fundamentally you have to ask yourself - on what level is a tenancy where you agree to look after someone's horse a good deal? I've never heard of anything remotely like this. Paying for land by providing services in exchange is something that mostly ended when the feudal system died out, unless you include service tenancies where people get free/cheap accommodation that goes with a job they're doing for the landlord, like being the building caretaker. If the landlord has a horse, it should be their responsibility to look after it; if they don't like the idea of it being in a stable on land they've rented out, they should either not rent out the land, find somewhere else for the horse to live or deal with the idea that they're going to have to come back regularly to look after the horse (which, to be honest, would be a pain in itself. You don't have to be a bad tenant to not want the landlord to turn up on a daily basis.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
Buckhead posted:Is it standard protocol for defense lawyers to ask their clients if they are guilty? Or is that taboo? It's basically taboo in England, as I understand it. If your client admits he committed the crime, you would then be misleading the court if you ran any kind of defence positively asserting his innocence, although I think you may still be able to run the minimal "just say nothing and knock any weak points in the prosecution's case you can" defence. If he wants to plead guilty or insists on telling you the truth, you work with what comes with that, but you wouldn't actually ask him to do this. He tells you what he wants to tell you, and you defend him on the basis of that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2013 20:21
|
|