Slashdot Mirror
Domain: legal-explanations.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to legal-explanations.com.
Comments · 7
-
Re:Government has bad lawyers?
I'm just curious if you read the law. Because it sure reads to me like Wikipedia is in violation of the letter of the law.
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/ejusdem-generis.htm
See the response letter for a lawyers explanation...
-
Re:Cars
The person from whom it was stolen can still hold the thief liable for damages, but can't get their original goods back.
A little googling brings up a lot of sites to dispute that claim:
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/possession-of-stolen-goods.htm
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-of-stolen-property/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/possession+of+stolen+goodsIf you can prove something was stolen from you, you can get it back or get compensated for it's value most of the time... the operative word is "prove". This is why it's important to mark your stuff in a manner most thieves will miss... like writing your name on the top of an ATX power supply before you install it. On laptops the inside of the RAM cover plate AND under the battery are both good. This also helps keep your stuff out of police auctions.
Just because you claim not to have known something was stolen does not allow you to keep the item, and if it can be shown you either have it or converted (sold or traded) it then you are on the hook for it, regardless of what you knew at the time.
-
Re:NYCL is a lawyer who handles RIAA cases!In American litigation (which I've been working in since 1974), the term "ex parte" means "without notice".
Put 2 lawyers in the same room and you will get at least 2 differing opinions
These web pages seem to say something different. But it could matter whether one is describing the effect or how it is used, or just the basis of the words in their Latin roots. And certainly "without notice" pretty much describes Ex Parte everywhere I've seen it used (via various news and online sources since IANAL).
-
Re:Be resourceful dude.The generally accepted legal definition of a counter offer is:
The [1] rejection of an offer to buy or sell that [2] makes a different offer during the course of negotiations, [3] changing the terms in some way.
See Source 1; Source 2; Source 3; Source 4;
Lets apply the definition to the facts.
Do we have a rejection of an offer? Yes. Yahoo's board has rejected Microsoft's offer. That fact has been well established.
Do we have a different offer made during the course of negitiations? Well according to the Bloomberg article cited previously, "Yahoo wants at least $40 a share, the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend." This is definitely a statement made during the course of negotiations. It also appears to be couched as a different offer (i.e., no we do not want $31 for a buyout, we want $40). If you want to debate the definition of offer, I have provided it for you here. I put the burden on you to prove that this act was not a different offer.
Did the subsequent offer change the terms? Yes.
Ok so we have met all the three requirements of a counter offer. You could walk into any Chancery Court in Delaware and I'd bet they'd agree. -
Re:Can You Be Sued for Quitting?
You're wrong as to what right to work is about. please read up before spouting off
-
Re:Texas IS a right to work state
Question:
Do you really know what the term right to work means? -
Re:ex parte