AIUI, any citizen can still advocate - but you have to be qualified to do it for reward.
Not quite. You're always entitled to represent yourself, no matter your level of legal knowledge (or for that matter, even literacy). However, to represent another person (whether paid or not), you need to be a licensed attorney.
By law, you have a set term to review a contract before signing it. In most states, this is three business days.
Nonsense. In some states, for some kinds of contracts, you have a set period of time after signing during which you can back out (door-to-door sales are one example, at least in California). You are not guaranteed any particular amount of time before signing (or otherwise manifesting agreement).
A contract cannot be introduced and imposed ex post facto (after the fact).
This much is true, though "ex post facto" isn't generally used in this context.
Typically, a contract is not legally binding unless it is signed by both parties and in the presence of at least one witness.
Again, nonsense. Most contracts don't need to be signed at all (they don't even have to be in writing), and very few require any kind of witness. All that's required for a contract to be binding is an agreement of the parties, and some consideration (that is, each party gets something). Some contracts (sale of goods over $500, over one year duration, sale of an interest in land, etc.) need to be in a signed writing, but the type of contract that the software publishers are claiming is formed by the EULA isn't one of those.
For most people, the most significant numbers (and the ones mostly being quoted here) are the ones labeled "sphere" on the Rx. A negative number denotes nearsightedness (myopia), while a positive number indicates farsightedness (hyperopia). This describes, in diopters, the focal length of a spherical lens used to correct myopia or hyperopia.
The other two numbers (per eye), labeled "Cylinder" and "axis", characterize astigmatism. The "cylinder" again describes a focal length in diopters, but it's the focus of a cylindrical lens, not a spherical one, and indicates the strength of the astigmatism. The "axis" measurement indicates how to orient the cylinder over the sphere, giving an angle in degrees (I believe 0 degrees is horizontal, but I'm not 100% sure of that).
In case you're interested, a diopter is the reciprocal of the focal length in meters. So, for example, a 2D lens would have a focal length of 1/2 meter.
If you have received a letter specifically and clearly accusing you of the things you mentioned, then congratulations, because you have a valid and clear-cut libel case on your hands.
No, in the scenario you present, you don't have any kind of a libel case. One of the elements of a libel claim is called "publication," which means (in this context) that you (the defendant) have communicated the defamatory statement to some third party. I can accuse you of anything, and so long as nobody else hears/reads (or understands) the accusation, I have not defamed you.
...none of which answers the initial question. To answer that question (and IAAL), you probably don't need a lawyer at this point, but if it makes you feel better, by all means consult one and explain the situation. The consultation may not cost anything; it certainly shouldn't cost very much. If you (the original poster, not xenoweeno) were my client (and you aren't), and I were advising you (and I'm not), I'd probably suggest doing nothing at this point. If you receive any communication from the CEO's attorney, have your lawyer reply to that explaining the situation (from what I've seen, this should cost under $150, but YMMV). If the FBI comes calling, it'd probably be prudent (though likely unnecessary) to have your lawyer present when you are questioned (this will probably cost more).
But you can most certainly waive your right to sue, just as you can consent to a search for which there is no probable cause, agree not to disclose certain information, or choose to represent yourself in court instead of hiring an attorney. At least, it's so in the USA; I wouldn't know about other jurisdictions. And FWIW, IAAL.
IAAL, and you are quite mistaken. Res judicata acts to bar relitigating an issue which has perviously been decided in the same cause of action. This means, among other things, that the parties must be the same. So, if Batt's motion to dismiss is denied, he can't subsequently raise the issue in the same proceeding (though he could still raise it on appeal).
The court's decision could be considered by other courts facing the same issue, but it wouldn't be binding on them.
VAG-COM is a very neat piece of software, but you're right in that it doesn't solve the problem all by itself--you need documentation. Fortunately, in VW's case, we have the folks at Robert Bentley Publishers to thank for the availability of the complete factory repair manuals, either in print or on CD. It's not "everything", but it's everything the dealer techs have access to, which is a good start--and should be all you need for maintenance purposes.
I guess that's in contrast to proprietary software, which comes with a money-back guarantee
Whenever I've bought MS software (admittedly, not a common occurrence), it's come with a money-back guarantee (which I've used on two occasions), and the boxes on the shelves still say they have it. Just FWIW...
Publishing "the truth" about someone has not usually been enough of a defense.
In the United States, truth is an absolute defense against a claim of defamation (libel or slander). See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts, sec. 581A: "One who publishes a defamatory statement of fact is not subject to liability for defamation if the statement is true." The Institute notes:
See, in support of the rule stated in this Section, that there can be no recovery in defamation for a true statement, regardless of defendant's motive, McCuddin v. Dickinson, 230 Iowa 1141, 300 N.W. 308 (1941); Castle v. Houston, 19 Kan. 417, 27 Am.Rep. 127 (1877); Herald Pub. Co. v. Feltner, 158 Ky. 35, 164 S.W. 370 (1914); Picard v. Brennan, 307 A.2d 833 (Me.1973); Montgomery Ward Cochrane v. Wittbold, 359 Mich. 402, 102 N.W.2d 459 (1960); Lancaster v. Hamburger, 70 Ohio St. 156, 71 N.E. 289 (1904); Craig v. Wright, 182 Okl. 68, 76 P.2d 248 (1938); Corabi v. Curtis Pub. Co., 441 Pa. 432, 273 A.2d 899 (1971); Lathan v. Journal Co., 30 Wis.2d 146, 140 N.E.2d 417 (1966).
IAAL, but you aren't my client, this isn't legal advice, etc.
Furthermore, using non-OEM parts will void the warranty.
No, it will not. Of course, Nissan won't cover aftermarket parts with their warranty (which is to say that they won't replace your non-OEM struts if they're defective), but they can't void the warranty on the rest of your car unless they can prove that the non-OEM part you installed caused the failure in question. I can't address the question of whether all aftermarket parts for Nissans are of poor quality (having never owned a Nissan), but that certainly isn't the case for all cars, and I'd be very surprised if a good aftermarket supplier didn't make quality filters for Nissans as well.
Reality check people! $60/year does NOT entitle you to a product that is almost $100 on the retail shelf.
But $69 for a boxed set with 7 CDs and 2 manuals does? SO 6 is in the PowerPack, or so they say, and that's what it costs from their site. If you don't care about the manuals, you can get it for $55.
You've already had one response reminding you of the Statute of Frauds, which I'm very surprised you would have forgotten if you're actually a lawyer. A contract for the sale of an interest in land falls under the SoF in every US jurisdiction that I know of (LA is always a little odd, so it may be an exception), and the SoF requires that a "contract or agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith" (Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 259, sec. 1 (2001)).
You could argue that the SoF is just a defense, not affecting whether a contract has been formed, but I disagree, and my legal dictionary seems to support this. Specifically, one of the defining characteristics of a contract is that you have a legal obligation to perform it--IOW, that it's enforceable. A "contract" for the sale of an interest in land that is not in a signed writing does not satisfy the SoF, so it isn't enforceable, so (IMO) it's not a real contract at all.
The other point I'd like to make regards consideration. You're right that each party has to give (or do) something, but just to clarify: the "something" can simply be a promise. For example, if you and I both sign a piece of paper that says you'll give me $15k and I'll give you my car, we're both bound at that point. I'm sure you knew this, but it seemed that your statement above re: consideration could be interpreted to say that it couldn't be enforced until one of us had actually performed (you'd paid me or I'd given you the car).
The promises in a contract only need to be specific enough to "identify a breach and grant a remedy"; they don't have to encompass every possible term of the the agreement. If the agreement is silent on a material term, the court will generally "fill in" that term with whatever is done in the normal course of business.
The article reports a definite agreement to buy/sell the house for a certain sum of money. There's no mention of things like closing costs, points, escrow fees, financing contingencies, etc., all of which would be in a standard form real estate purchase agreement, but none of those are relevant to the case (if they were, the court might fill in a commercially reasonable term, or it might send the parties to some sort of arbitration/mediation to work them out).
IMO, and as reported in the article, the e-mails were definite enough to form a binding contract. The primary issues are the Statute of Frauds (on which the judge ruled, and I think correctly), and the necessity of the wife's agreement (which doesn't look so good for the plaintiff).
IAAL, but you're not my client(s), this isn't legal advice, I'm not licensed in MA, etc.
Exactly what I was about to say. Note that Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2 only applies to contracts for the sale of goods (not land), but most of the principles in the UCC reflect the common law. In particular, from section 1-201:
(38) "Signed" includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing.
. ..
(45) "Written" or "writing" includes printing, typewriting, or any other intentional reduction to tangible form.
Doesn't mean the guy's going to win, just that it's not going to be thrown out on the grounds that the contract isn't contained in a "signed writing".
Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24426, 36 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1028, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27,470, 33 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 468, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6889, 95 Daily Journal DAR 11821 (9th Cir. 1995).
In order to service a Triad computer, the Southeastern technician uses the OS software and the service software in the Triad customer's possession. Triad argues that Southeastern has infringed its software copyrights because copies of the software are made in the computer's random access memory (RAM) when the computer is in use.
Id. at 1332. The court held in Triad's favor.
See also MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993):
However, since we find that the copy created in the RAM can be "perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated," we hold that the loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 101.
Actually, there was an SVGA card out about 7-8 years ago; I had one. Don't remember the name (Second Sight, maybe?), or even the manufacturer, but I recall that Jawaid Bazyar (pretty sure I spelled that correctly) was involved with the project.
Speaking of Linux, Jawaid was also involved with the GNO/ME project, which brought Unix-like multitasking to the Apple IIgs (it did require the '816 chip, though, so it wouldn't run on a//e).
Around 1993-94, I remember a vendor (allegedly) working on a DSP card. If memory serves, it was to have had a 16 MHz or 20 MHz Motorola 56k-series DSP on board, along with I don't remember what else (probably some RAM at least). I don't remember ever seeing one, or hearing that they'd gone into production, although it certainly sounded cool at the time. Don't know that it would have been very useful for anything, though (I recall suggestions of software modems, but that's about it). Anyway, this probably could have done the trick...
Probable cause relates to criminal cases, not civil contractual disputes.
If they're getting a search warrant, and having it served by federal law enforcement officers, it's pretty clear that a criminal case is being considered (or at least, that they're claiming so).
According to Martindale-Hubbell, an international directory of attorneys, he is. He's apparently been licensed for about 20 years, and has his office in Portland, OR.
I suggest you _read_ their agreement. You cannot refuse a charge from Paypal, you agree to settle it on THEIR terms.
Did you read the article? As it notes, they can't enforce that term due to their contracts with VISA/MC (and, probably, legal requirements). If they could, then any other merchant could do the same thing by printing such language on a charge slip.
That said, there's nothing to prevent PP from coming after you for a legitimate charge that you've disputed. For that matter, there's no guarantee that a chargeback will be resolved in your favor--if PP can convice your card issuer that the charge is legitimate, it stays.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite. You're always entitled to represent yourself, no matter your level of legal knowledge (or for that matter, even literacy). However, to represent another person (whether paid or not), you need to be a licensed attorney.
I've seen ads for as low as $299/eye; the surgeon I'm considering normally charges about $2k/eye. Some places are even more.
For most people, the most significant numbers (and the ones mostly being quoted here) are the ones labeled "sphere" on the Rx. A negative number denotes nearsightedness (myopia), while a positive number indicates farsightedness (hyperopia). This describes, in diopters, the focal length of a spherical lens used to correct myopia or hyperopia.
The other two numbers (per eye), labeled "Cylinder" and "axis", characterize astigmatism. The "cylinder" again describes a focal length in diopters, but it's the focus of a cylindrical lens, not a spherical one, and indicates the strength of the astigmatism. The "axis" measurement indicates how to orient the cylinder over the sphere, giving an angle in degrees (I believe 0 degrees is horizontal, but I'm not 100% sure of that).
In case you're interested, a diopter is the reciprocal of the focal length in meters. So, for example, a 2D lens would have a focal length of 1/2 meter.
But you can most certainly waive your right to sue, just as you can consent to a search for which there is no probable cause, agree not to disclose certain information, or choose to represent yourself in court instead of hiring an attorney. At least, it's so in the USA; I wouldn't know about other jurisdictions. And FWIW, IAAL.
Just test drive a KIA and get a free copy of the current release. Then buy the extended one, if you want it, in November when it comes out.
IAAL, and you are quite mistaken. Res judicata acts to bar relitigating an issue which has perviously been decided in the same cause of action. This means, among other things, that the parties must be the same. So, if Batt's motion to dismiss is denied, he can't subsequently raise the issue in the same proceeding (though he could still raise it on appeal).
The court's decision could be considered by other courts facing the same issue, but it wouldn't be binding on them.
VAG-COM is a very neat piece of software, but you're right in that it doesn't solve the problem all by itself--you need documentation. Fortunately, in VW's case, we have the folks at Robert Bentley Publishers to thank for the availability of the complete factory repair manuals, either in print or on CD. It's not "everything", but it's everything the dealer techs have access to, which is a good start--and should be all you need for maintenance purposes.
...or, to get the opinion directly from the court, click here.
You've already had one response reminding you of the Statute of Frauds, which I'm very surprised you would have forgotten if you're actually a lawyer. A contract for the sale of an interest in land falls under the SoF in every US jurisdiction that I know of (LA is always a little odd, so it may be an exception), and the SoF requires that a "contract or agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith" (Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 259, sec. 1 (2001)).
You could argue that the SoF is just a defense, not affecting whether a contract has been formed, but I disagree, and my legal dictionary seems to support this. Specifically, one of the defining characteristics of a contract is that you have a legal obligation to perform it--IOW, that it's enforceable. A "contract" for the sale of an interest in land that is not in a signed writing does not satisfy the SoF, so it isn't enforceable, so (IMO) it's not a real contract at all.
The other point I'd like to make regards consideration. You're right that each party has to give (or do) something, but just to clarify: the "something" can simply be a promise. For example, if you and I both sign a piece of paper that says you'll give me $15k and I'll give you my car, we're both bound at that point. I'm sure you knew this, but it seemed that your statement above re: consideration could be interpreted to say that it couldn't be enforced until one of us had actually performed (you'd paid me or I'd given you the car).
The promises in a contract only need to be specific enough to "identify a breach and grant a remedy"; they don't have to encompass every possible term of the the agreement. If the agreement is silent on a material term, the court will generally "fill in" that term with whatever is done in the normal course of business.
The article reports a definite agreement to buy/sell the house for a certain sum of money. There's no mention of things like closing costs, points, escrow fees, financing contingencies, etc., all of which would be in a standard form real estate purchase agreement, but none of those are relevant to the case (if they were, the court might fill in a commercially reasonable term, or it might send the parties to some sort of arbitration/mediation to work them out).
IMO, and as reported in the article, the e-mails were definite enough to form a binding contract. The primary issues are the Statute of Frauds (on which the judge ruled, and I think correctly), and the necessity of the wife's agreement (which doesn't look so good for the plaintiff).
IAAL, but you're not my client(s), this isn't legal advice, I'm not licensed in MA, etc.
Exactly what I was about to say. Note that Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2 only applies to contracts for the sale of goods (not land), but most of the principles in the UCC reflect the common law. In particular, from section 1-201:
.
(38) "Signed" includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing.
. .
(45) "Written" or "writing" includes printing, typewriting, or any other intentional reduction to tangible form.
Doesn't mean the guy's going to win, just that it's not going to be thrown out on the grounds that the contract isn't contained in a "signed writing".
Nope, only for SPARC. They've taken down the x86 ISOs (but dropped the cost of the "media kit" to $45 from $75).
See also MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993):
Speaking of Linux, Jawaid was also involved with the GNO/ME project, which brought Unix-like multitasking to the Apple IIgs (it did require the '816 chip, though, so it wouldn't run on a //e).
Around 1993-94, I remember a vendor (allegedly) working on a DSP card. If memory serves, it was to have had a 16 MHz or 20 MHz Motorola 56k-series DSP on board, along with I don't remember what else (probably some RAM at least). I don't remember ever seeing one, or hearing that they'd gone into production, although it certainly sounded cool at the time. Don't know that it would have been very useful for anything, though (I recall suggestions of software modems, but that's about it). Anyway, this probably could have done the trick...
According to Martindale-Hubbell, an international directory of attorneys, he is. He's apparently been licensed for about 20 years, and has his office in Portland, OR.
Did you read the article? As it notes, they can't enforce that term due to their contracts with VISA/MC (and, probably, legal requirements). If they could, then any other merchant could do the same thing by printing such language on a charge slip.
That said, there's nothing to prevent PP from coming after you for a legitimate charge that you've disputed. For that matter, there's no guarantee that a chargeback will be resolved in your favor--if PP can convice your card issuer that the charge is legitimate, it stays.