YOu cannot extradite someone to a country where they may THEN face xtradition to a country that has the death penalty and could enforce it in this case.
Would that be the blatantly unconstitutional, failed utterly the only time it was tried in court Espionage Act of 1917? NYT would have fits of laughter if the administration tried that....
Usual IANAL, but I have done this before with mobile phones.
As above. Unfair Contract Terms Act, mainly - any contract of adhesion which contains unconscionable terms, which clauses allowing unilateral changes to terms are, falls under this legislation and any clause permitting is considered null. (as they normally have a severability clause to ensure that one invalid clause doesnt invalidate the whole contract)
This means that enforcing new terms unilaterally requires that they have a) terminated the old contract (as due to UCTA they cannot vary any terms unilaterally) and b) are *offering* you a new one. You do NOT have to accept their offer, at which point your business arrangement with them has ended.
If the phone was a gift (advertised as Free, or witha nominal cost) then you keep the phone and owe nothing more. No termination fees, nothing.
Make sure you follow up any phone call with a registered letter giving notice of termination due to non-acceptance, with a copy to their legal department, and a requirement to provide the PAC within 14 days (ofcom requires 3, but 14 is a "reasonable" minima given the circumstances - and you need to show you have been reasonable at every step) to get your number out. Ensure that you reserve the right to pursue them through small claims court. Make sure you cite either your enumerated rights to do so, which most contracts have somewhere in the small print, or point out UCTA which means you have those rights REGARDLESS of what they say.
3. Incorrect, usually. The phone was advertised as "Free", therefore it is. If there is no lease arrangement you cannot be held liable for the phone - it was a gift contingent on signing for a 12 / 18 / 24 month contract.
Having done this before (started charging for billing that was originally inclusive, took phone and left them) I find the threat of a SCC referral normally helps smooth them out. Simply turning up will cost them more than your phone + contract is worth, never mind spending any time preparing a defense - although I'd love to see one which tries to spin this change to terms as NOT detrimental, it would require truly epic doublethink to do....
Even better - you take them to small claims court for the damages and any costs accrued if they sendyou to debt collection. Once you show that you have complied with the UK legislation (UCTA mainly) you will be able to show you have no valid debt with teh company. The credit ratings agencies are then required to update this fact.
IF they bother showing up then laugh, as simply appearing will have cost them more than your contract value. They should still lose, and most magistrates arent big fans of large companies obviously breaking the law....
The contract has to allow you to break it if they change terms to your detriment, as part of the UCTA in the UK.
So they can change the terms, if you dont agree with them and they are detrimental to you you are free to cancel your contract and retain any "free" phone. (as it was free, not contingent on you seeing out your contract)
Of course IANAL. But formally notify them of your intentions (registered post), give one month notice (as good will) and then, if they dispute ensure you transfer your number out (so they dont hold it hostage) and make them take YOU to court. It will require them to file in small claims court, ad they will have to show how drastically cutting your limits and then blocking you from using data at all if you breach them somehow ISNT detrimental - which they will struggle with.
If they dont take you to court, and instead try to use debt collection, then you take them to court to show that there is no debt as you were not bound to the contract due to their actions and your reasonable response. Again, small claims court is your friend - IF they show up it will cost them more than your contract value.
1. No, he is not. Releasing documetns you have not obtained yoursel is not espionage 2. Even if it were, he has not signed up to covenants prohibiting him from taking those actions. Unlike Hilaary Clinton.
Not legally binding in the UK or, I suspect, most enlightened countries.
Being able to force contracts of adhesion (not actual contracts, from a basic idea of how contracts should be formed) means you are then regulated as to their content.
Slashdot Mirror
Only when a severability clause is included, in general. Otherwise the agreement is, in principal, invalid.
Of course pretty much every contract I have ever seen includes this as boilerplate.
and you can disagree with it, and ALL it does is stop you from connecting to PSN
nothing more.
No it isnt, as it follows UK Law precisely.
YOu cannot extradite someone to a country where they may THEN face xtradition to a country that has the death penalty and could enforce it in this case.
Would that be the blatantly unconstitutional, failed utterly the only time it was tried in court Espionage Act of 1917? NYT would have fits of laughter if the administration tried that....
"economically destroyed"?
Seriously, you have some idea of your national debt dont you. Compare that to, for example, Germany.
Idiot.
Usual IANAL, but I have done this before with mobile phones.
As above. Unfair Contract Terms Act, mainly - any contract of adhesion which contains unconscionable terms, which clauses allowing unilateral changes to terms are, falls under this legislation and any clause permitting is considered null. (as they normally have a severability clause to ensure that one invalid clause doesnt invalidate the whole contract)
This means that enforcing new terms unilaterally requires that they have a) terminated the old contract (as due to UCTA they cannot vary any terms unilaterally) and b) are *offering* you a new one. You do NOT have to accept their offer, at which point your business arrangement with them has ended.
If the phone was a gift (advertised as Free, or witha nominal cost) then you keep the phone and owe nothing more. No termination fees, nothing.
Make sure you follow up any phone call with a registered letter giving notice of termination due to non-acceptance, with a copy to their legal department, and a requirement to provide the PAC within 14 days (ofcom requires 3, but 14 is a "reasonable" minima given the circumstances - and you need to show you have been reasonable at every step) to get your number out. Ensure that you reserve the right to pursue them through small claims court. Make sure you cite either your enumerated rights to do so, which most contracts have somewhere in the small print, or point out UCTA which means you have those rights REGARDLESS of what they say.
3. Incorrect, usually. The phone was advertised as "Free", therefore it is. If there is no lease arrangement you cannot be held liable for the phone - it was a gift contingent on signing for a 12 / 18 / 24 month contract.
Having done this before (started charging for billing that was originally inclusive, took phone and left them) I find the threat of a SCC referral normally helps smooth them out. Simply turning up will cost them more than your phone + contract is worth, never mind spending any time preparing a defense - although I'd love to see one which tries to spin this change to terms as NOT detrimental, it would require truly epic doublethink to do....
Even better - you take them to small claims court for the damages and any costs accrued if they sendyou to debt collection. Once you show that you have complied with the UK legislation (UCTA mainly) you will be able to show you have no valid debt with teh company. The credit ratings agencies are then required to update this fact.
IF they bother showing up then laugh, as simply appearing will have cost them more than your contract value. They should still lose, and most magistrates arent big fans of large companies obviously breaking the law....
The contract has to allow you to break it if they change terms to your detriment, as part of the UCTA in the UK.
So they can change the terms, if you dont agree with them and they are detrimental to you you are free to cancel your contract and retain any "free" phone. (as it was free, not contingent on you seeing out your contract)
Of course IANAL. But formally notify them of your intentions (registered post), give one month notice (as good will) and then, if they dispute ensure you transfer your number out (so they dont hold it hostage) and make them take YOU to court. It will require them to file in small claims court, ad they will have to show how drastically cutting your limits and then blocking you from using data at all if you breach them somehow ISNT detrimental - which they will struggle with.
If they dont take you to court, and instead try to use debt collection, then you take them to court to show that there is no debt as you were not bound to the contract due to their actions and your reasonable response. Again, small claims court is your friend - IF they show up it will cost them more than your contract value.
You're forgetting that arms arent generally welcomed in commercial ports.
BA, BMI and Lufthansa, who I have flown on in the last 6 months, do NOT "require" you to have your seatbelt on, but *suggest* that you do.
Your claim is therefore false.
No compulsory purchase provision in US law?
Except in the UK they will lose, and lose big. Frivolous lawsuits are looked down upon.
Taking on one of the largest universities in the world, with alumni who are incredibly powerful, is not a good idea.
The banking code still stipulates they have to prove negligence on your part. They will,l of course, pretend otherwise - but it is irrelevant.
He didnt run.
He asked permission ot leave the country, after all charges being dropped, and was given permission to.
He is not hidden. His whereabouts are very well known - its a condition of bail.
Your post lacks a lot of credibility.
Sorry, they wouldnt be attracted to you, theyve seen better.
Well in the UK the COnsumer Credit Act 1974 means you have no liability for fraudulent transactions. That does not apply to Debit Card transactions.
Borderline?
Not after a few beers. There is a definite "line" that gets crossed more often than most realise... ;)
Posting classified documents /= illegal activity. You can tell it isnt due to the lack legal activity.
Taking the documents in teh first place is the [potentially] criminal act.
No, they are required to make as much money as possible, by any means they can.
Anything less and shareholders can sue for breach of fiduciary responsibility.
This is why corporations are inherently sociopathic.
1. No, he is not. Releasing documetns you have not obtained yoursel is not espionage
2. Even if it were, he has not signed up to covenants prohibiting him from taking those actions. Unlike Hilaary Clinton.
None of your examples are from after the act.
If you decide after having sex that you shouldnt have had sex - your problem. NOT rape.
Not legally binding in the UK or, I suspect, most enlightened countries.
Being able to force contracts of adhesion (not actual contracts, from a basic idea of how contracts should be formed) means you are then regulated as to their content.
My suspiciion is that this would be in the US?
In the UK such a term would fall foul of UCTA as well as general Sales of Goods, and would be unenforceable.
Sweden would probably complain, just a tad, over such an egregious act of war.
This is why an electronic attack is more likely. Easier to hide the origins of the C&C