859
860

[Serious] Lawyers of Reddit, what is a loophole most people don't know about?serious replies only (self.AskReddit)

-pm-your-boobies- が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]AutoModerator[M] [スコア非表示] stickied comment (0子コメント)

Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice

  • Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in any comment, parent or child.

  • Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • Report comments that violate these rules.

Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead.

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]NoCreativeName2016 764ポイント765ポイント  (79子コメント)

A contract signed with a minor is voidable by the minor, but not the other party. Would have been fun to take advantage of that as a kid.

[–]Chiba211 287ポイント288ポイント  (10子コメント)

I did. Columbia House and BMG just never learned.

[–]mayonnaiseslacks 284ポイント285ポイント  (4子コメント)

Dude I totally did the same thing and this immediately came to mind. After getting something like 50 CDs from both of those companies I started getting collections notices. I freaked and hid them from my parents for weeks. Eventually as a last ditch effort on a whim I mailed them a letter telling them I was a minor and then never saw another collection notice again. Felt like I made out like a bandit even though most of the albums I got were the shitty featured album of the month that was never worth a damn.

コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

    [–]druglawyer 132ポイント133ポイント  (13子コメント)

    But if the minor enters the contract with the intent of later voiding it due to this rule, and then does so, the minor is liable for fraud.

    [–]SuccumbedToReddit 36ポイント37ポイント  (9子コメント)

    How would you prove that?

    [–]ShadowSwipe 82ポイント83ポイント  (7子コメント)

    The minor fails to make a good faith effort to follow the terms of the contract when they reasonably could have.

    [–]TrueDivision 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Just don't do it straight away or more than once and you're good

    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

      [–]Trillkilla69 72ポイント73ポイント  (19子コメント)

      Am minor how do i use this to make $

      [–]kanninabu 160ポイント161ポイント  (7子コメント)

      Sign a contract for something, get free product/service, refuse to do your end of the deal.

      Note that contrary to popular belief and media portrayals, it's not easy to game the system, especially if the issue in question will have to be argued before a judge. The idea behind the law is to prevent minors from being taken advantage of. If you use it to defraud other parties, judges can and will see right through it and tell you to fuck right off.

      [–]Voxlashi 43ポイント44ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Also, if you use it to get an item that can be returned, you'll probably be forced to return it, as a valid contract never actually existed.

      コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

        [–]19_040 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

        Like, go big. Buy an airplane or a house, flip it for profit.

        [–]_Brokkoli 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

        you still have to give it back.

        [–]JimJonesIII 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Not if you crashed it...

        [–]Cuchullion[🍰] 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

        They warned us about the dangers of crashing a house.

        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

          コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

            [–]talktoten 35ポイント36ポイント  (18子コメント)

            In Australia a contract signed by a minor is not actually legally binding unless it's for "necessities" (e.g. food items etc) or it benefits the child. If I could prove that student loans weren't to my benefit, I technically wouldn't owe the government anything for funding my first few years of uni because I signed the "I will pay back this massive loan" thing when I was under eighteen. I'm going to pay it back anyway, but hey.

            edit: changed "valid" to "binding" because they're two different words. also clarified a point (thanks /u/hansmelb)

            [–]I-RON-MAIDEN 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

            remember back to signing my original student loan paperwork (in NZ) and there was a very serious piece that said something like "DO NOT ENTER ANYTHING UNDER THIS LINE OR YOU WILL RENDER THIS APPLICATION VOID" so i put a little dot with a pencil at the bottom of the page. I think it was just to stop people filling out the parts that they weren't meant to & I don't think it would hold up in court that my dot voids $33k of (thankfully now repaid!) debt but it would be fun to try!

            [–]JSCMI 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

            In Australia a contract signed by a minor is not actually legally binding unless it's for "necessities" (e.g. food items etc) or it benefits the child.

            US contracts must benefit both parties, regardless of age. quid pro quo / consideration for both parties.

            Judges can void them if they deem them excessively one-sided to avoid technicalities... like if you convince me to sign a contract allowing you to buy my house for $1 if you had lunch with me once in a while.

            sigh so lonely though

            [–]csgregwer 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

            I should have used that to get out of a year's worth of loans. Definitely signed those papers at 17.

            [–]penis_sosmall 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Wouldn't work, since you ratified the contract when you reached adulthood by receiving the aid. You would have had to refuse it when you hit 18

            コメントをもっと表示する (12 返事)

              [–]RapNVideoGames 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

              But sprint breaks the contract and saves you money too

              [–]Febreezii 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

              If i ever become a teacher im telling them this

              [–]Fox13192 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

              With the exception, in some states, of contracts for necessaries.

              コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

                [–]night-shark 486ポイント487ポイント  (59子コメント)

                In California, when issued a moving violation, you have a right to a change of venue under certain circumstances. The venue (court to hear your case) must, on request, be changed to the seat of the county in which the citation is issued IF the county seat is closer to your home.

                So let's say I'm ticketed in little ole Twentynine Palms, County of San Bernardino, CA. The default courthouse to hear my case will be just down the road at Joshua Tree. But before the officer completes the citation, I can demand that my case be heard in San Bernardino city, 100 miles away because San Bernardino is closer to my home in San Diego.

                Why is this important? Because chances are good that officer lives much closer to where he/she issued your ticket than 100 miles away in San Bernardino. Chances are even better that they won't drive the 100 miles to attend the hearing.

                Edit: had to correct some bad autocorrect.

                [–]Deadroachdancing 124ポイント125ポイント  (25子コメント)

                Also request a date change. Chance are the officer has scheduled all his ticket dates the same day in order to not have to miss multiple days of work.

                [–]TheNerdWithNoName 73ポイント74ポイント  (5子コメント)

                How would they be missing work? Surely turning up to court is part of their job. I doubt they do it for free on their days off.

                [–]Deadroachdancing 80ポイント81ポイント  (2子コメント)

                They get paid, but if they're scheduled to patrol that day they will not "skip" to go to court. They designate an entire day for court, which is when they would schedule ticket dates.

                [–]hateplow169 24ポイント25ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Also if they're an evening/ midnight shift officer they have to wake up early to go to court.

                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                  コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                    [–]litux 8ポイント9ポイント  (11子コメント)

                    Do police officers miss work when they attend a hearing as a result of them doing their job?

                    (I mean, I'm all for speeding and trolling the traffic cops, but this sounds absurd...)

                    [–]Deadroachdancing 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    You have the right to face your accuser. If you are going to a hearing it means you're pleading not guilty, Or at the very least hoping for a reduced ticket. Cops schedule their hearing for the people who don't just pay for the ticket or go to traffic school. If the cop doesn't show up to the hearing (which they won't if it's scheduled on a normal work day for them) the judge is likely to throw the ticket out.

                    [–]zapuda 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

                    No, they get paid, plus mileage for their drive.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                      コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                        [–]68686987698 13ポイント14ポイント  (10子コメント)

                        How common is it to have a county that huge though? A county seat being 100 miles away from another city in its jurisdiction seems huge to me.

                        [–]brotherenigma 28ポイント29ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        Common in Cali, Texas, and most of the south- and midwest. Moreso in Cali and Texas than anywhere else though, simply because they're huge states. Even in metro Detroit, where I live, a county seat can be more than 35 miles away from the ticketing location as the crow flies.

                        [–]adrianmonk 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Really big counties like that do exist in Texas, but only a handful of them, and they're all in the very sparsely populated parts of the state.

                        Texas is a big state, but it also 254 counties, the most of any state. A typical size for a county in Texas is about 900 square miles. A whole lot of them are basically square shaped, so that makes them 30 miles on a side.

                        The biggest county is Brewster County, which is 6193 square miles. That's a lot of land area (bigger than Connecticut...), and it is a 100 mile drive from some points in the county to the county seat (Alpine, TX), but that's mainly because Alpine is near the north edge of the county.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                          [–]boreas907 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

                          Well, the example of San Bernardino County is the most extreme case, as it is the largest in the state (bigger than 9 states and 70 countries), but as you can see on that map, most California counties are pretty darn big. So in all but the smallest counties doing this would at least make it inconvenient for the officer involved.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                            [–]krazsen 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Similarly, the NY State Trooper barracks close to where I live/work is a training station. If you're given a speeding ticket by a younger officer, there's a good chance that he's training and not likely to be in the area too long, therefore you can set a court hearing months after the ticket is issued, gambling on the officer not showing up and you get off at the cost of a day out of work

                            [–]sofiavisitor 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            This is a useful one

                            [–]fdtc_skolar 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

                            I wish this were true in South Carolina. There are several notorious speed trap towns (like Society Hill). Moving to the county seat (15 miles away) would cut down on the shenanigans like; speeding three miles over the posted limit or tag that was expired for one day (both actual tickets I know of).

                            コメントをもっと表示する (15 返事)

                              [–]BlurDynamic 155ポイント156ポイント  (8子コメント)

                              In the UK if you pay for parking and there's a sign saying that they aren't responsible for damage to the car then you can still sue them as long as you've paid because by law you expect security with the money you paid.

                              [–]cowtown456 28ポイント29ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              It's like the Marlborough Court Hotel case too, if they put a sign on the back of your hotel room door or hidden in an underground parking lot but not at reception or the ticket machine when you are paying/agreeing to pay, their liability disclaimer that they are not responsible for damage is not valid because you weren't given the choice to decide to stay there or not knowing that information.

                              コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                                [–]Rlight 292ポイント293ポイント  (93子コメント)

                                Adverse Possession!

                                This is a really complicated doctrine, but to put it really simply: Let's say you and your neighbor have big unfenced yards. Somewhere between your two properties there's a nice Cherry tree. One day you get a little Golden Retriever puppy and you want to build a fence. So you build that fence and include the Cherry Tree on your side.

                                In reality, that Cherry tree is on the neighbor's side of the property line. BUT after 10 years of that fence being there (depends on state), it's yours. You have now adversely possessed that land.

                                [–]Dreams2cream4[🍰] 159ポイント160ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                Manifest destiny!

                                [–]68686987698 98ポイント99ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                Pretty sure you've got to murder an innocent Indian on the land for it to count.

                                Feathers, not dot though. Don't wanna be racist.

                                [–]busterbell 38ポイント39ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                If your neighbor acknowledges that your fence is on his/her property and gives you permission to keep the fence on their property, wouldn't that nullify the adverse possession?

                                [–]EdTheHobo 40ポイント41ポイント  (16子コメント)

                                The problem here is trying to prove the fence was built 10 years ago.

                                [–]Indigo_Sunset 43ポイント44ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                Never ask for permission, only forgiveness.

                                And document the shit out of everything until it needs to be lost. CYA, it all depends on how you pronounce it.

                                [–]AmansRevenger 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Ok, who do I ask for forgiveness then? Let's KABOOM something!

                                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                  [–]ePants 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  A few photos (with timestamp and location data) and a reciept for materials would probably suffice.

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

                                    [–]frizzykid 20ポイント21ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    This actually was discussed in my street law class a few years ago.

                                    My teacher (who lived where he did for 15 years) had a new neighbor move in and when he moved in he discovered that my teacher (unknowingly) had encroached on his land. He said he didn't think his old neighbors knew (or cared) as they were a nice old couple.

                                    My teacher was actually super chill and was like "Im sorry, I'll buy it off you if thats what you want? I have a garden in this space and the fence was expensive to install, we can go to the town and work this out there, I'll give you X amount of money"

                                    Neighbor was like "No thats my land I want it"

                                    They went to the town, My teacher fought over it, and Adverse Possession came into play and it turns out a year or two before his new neighbor moved in the land was considered my teachers.

                                    The neighbor the next day came by asking for the money he offered, my teacher told him to go fuck himself and that its his property now and closed the door in his face.

                                    [–]jholland513 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                    Yup. This is actually a thing and it's happened to me. Because of the way some neighbors constructed a fence behind my house back in the 60's I own about 2' by 6' of land that's technically past my property line.

                                    [–]smithyithy_ 7ポイント8ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                    There's a similar thing the UK regarding driveway access and right of way.

                                    In my street there's a corner house on the outside of a bend. They have a 3-car front driveway but the actual start of the driveway is narrower than a cars width, and it splays out towards the house, meaning their cars have to straddle the driveways either side in order to enter their own.

                                    The house on their left got tired if this so placed their rubbish bins along the edge of the driveway to the bottom to prevent this. However the house to the right can't do this, because the old couple that lived there years ago allowed it for a long enough time to make it 'agreed'. So even though new people have since moved into the house to the right, they can't use the full width of their driveway for their 3 cars, because then they'd be blocking the corner house from entering their driveway.

                                    The corner house actually have a much larger driveway behind their house, which is accessed from an adjacent road, but they've taken advantage of the above in order to gain an additional driveway.

                                    [–]thankmrdootdoot 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                    That's either an easement or an implied covenant not to block the driveway (so still property law, but not the same type - adverse possession is the right to own land, easement is a right of access, and a covenant's an obligation to do or not do something, like not blocking the driveway, which this sounds more like)

                                    [–]ivegotaqueso 32ポイント33ポイント  (30子コメント)

                                    In reality, that Cherry tree is on the neighbor's side of the property line. BUT after 10 years of that fence being there (depends on state), it's yours. You have now adversely possessed that land.

                                    I would go nuclear on my neighbor if that happened. Shine bright lights in their yard at night. Play annoying festive music in the day. Do my yard work and rake me some leaves at 3am in the morning. Dig up some animal poop and lay it right at the property line. Leave gallons of standing water unattended, in the area closest to their hot tub, to breed a ton of mosquitoes. Make a compost heap or leave the gray waste trashcan across from their bedroom door. The list is endless!

                                    [–]MzScarlet03 69ポイント70ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                    This rule is to punish lazy/absent landowners. If you landowner at any time before the adverse possession clock runs out says "hey neighbor, I think your fence is on my land, please remove it", there is no adverse possession. Also, if you did the things you suggest, the neighbor will def successfully sue you for private (and maybe public...) nuisance.

                                    [–]TheNoveltyAccountant 24ポイント25ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    Can I just send a vaguely worded letter to my property every 9 years saying "get off my land" and be covered against this?

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                      [–]yo-yo-baggins 32ポイント33ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                      I was in on an adverse posession incident that was legit. I purchased a house, behind the house the landowner had what amounted to 2 or 3 parcels of land as one giant parcel.

                                      He had a driveway that ran behind my property on the property line, it hung a left to his garage.

                                      He decided to get it paved. He went to do the right thing, get the appropriate paperwork from the borough and all that. He comes to discover that no one owned his driveway. There was a map, it was this teeny, tiny, sliver of land that no one owned. Weird.

                                      So he got all the neighbors to sign a form witnessed by notary, he then went to court and attested that he had been using it for his own purposes for some amount of years.

                                      Adverse posession isn't always a bad thing.

                                      [–]RelaxationNation 19ポイント20ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                      If it was a fence built on my property, and I knew it was intentional (construction didn't cease after I tell them) I would simply wait until it was completely finished, give it a week or two for them to pay the contractors, then just cut/rip the fence straight down.

                                      [–]ArrowRobber 14ポイント15ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                      I don't know the rules, but wouldn't that be the fence is their property, but they put it on your property?

                                      Safer to remind them again, in writing, that the fence is on your property, and it is to be removed at their expense. THEN if they don't do anything about it you remove the fence & bill them?

                                      [–]RelaxationNation 32ポイント33ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                      Any structure illegally erected on your property can be demolished.

                                      [–]sunkzero 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      In the UK this could be considered criminal damage if you didn't give the other party reasonable time to remove it. What's "reasonable" before you can use "self-help" is a matter of judgemen for a court - eg if it was blocking your front door then immediate self-help is probably justified.

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                                        [–]DontcarexX 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                        Just remove the fence that is on your property the first day it's up…

                                        [–]Amadn1995 26ポイント27ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                        No you build another fence on the neighbour's side. Claim both your tree and their fence! Repeat as desired to become a local chieftain.

                                        [–]benjnomnom 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                        Doesn't even have to be the first day, wait 9 years and 364.5 days and THEN knock it down. That would well piss them off.

                                        [–]Rlight 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                        Actually you don't need to do anything that drastic. If you give them permission to be there, the land will remain legally yours. You can, of course, eject them from the land and tear down their stuff (as long as you're attempting to minimize the damages).

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                          [–]brndnlnd 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                          What if you use hedges rather than an actual fence? Does it still apply?

                                          [–]Rlight 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                          Yep! You just need to be making a showing that the land is yours. Something "open and notorious." Meaning that it's really really obvious to your neighbor that you're possessing that land.

                                          [–]brotherenigma 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          Possession IS nine-tenths of the law, after all...

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (18 返事)

                                            [–]SavannahJohnston 309ポイント310ポイント  (64子コメント)

                                            In Toronto if you tell a landlord that you have pets, he can deny you from renting. However if you don't mention that you have pets, and then move in the next day with 10 dogs the landlord can't evict you. Only condos that are pet free can add into a lease that you can be evicted for bringing pets.

                                            [–]beknockin 118ポイント119ポイント  (30子コメント)

                                            Not a lawyer, but I told my apartment complex that my dog is an emotional support animal. They didn't even question it and waived the pet fee.

                                            [–]McGuinea 100ポイント101ポイント  (26子コメント)

                                            In the US, emotional support animals aren't covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. And there's really no proof required that an animal is a protected service animal. I see this abused a lot, and hope it changes. I think the dogs should require some type of ID. Businesses can only ask 2 questions to owners of alleged service dogs.

                                            [–]Kraymur 24ポイント25ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                            I'm in Canada, my mom had a support dog to help her walk, and the dog had a license on its collar.

                                            [–]ffsloadingusername 11ポイント12ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                            How does a dog help someone walk?

                                            [–]thelonebard 46ポイント47ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                            Solid handle and harness, not as good as a walker but it is capable of walkies.

                                            Remember dogs are fucking strong, you put a large dog in a harness and it could drag you and 5 others down the road behind it if it wanted, training one to stand upright and not shift its weight away from you constantly and it'll serve more or less the same job as walking along with your hand on a wall for stability.

                                            [–]pelito 36ポイント37ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                            my dog could pull a honda civic if you harness him and put a squirrel in front of him.

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                              [–]ruarisaurusrrex 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              that's a service dog not an emotional support animal :)

                                              [–]GottaKnowFoSho 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                              Absolutely. Had a guy bring two unruly dogs in claiming they were service dogs and one of them shit on the carpet while the asshole just sat there grinning.

                                              [–]Skunkies 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                              my mom has a support cat, has had him 15 years, the apartment god sold, the new landlord issued a new lease and started charging her for the cat. she's currently fighting this in court to try and get shit changed so these are legal and people can not abuse it anymore either, and so she can keep the cat. 15 years. she aint parting with that cat lol.

                                              [–]Letmepickausername 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                              If this is in the US she probably won't win. The Americans with Disabilities Act states that only dogs and miniature horses can be service animals. Emotional support animals aren't covered by the ADA.

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (33 返事)

                                                      [–]peterfonda2 275ポイント276ポイント  (70子コメント)

                                                      That in New York, signing a waiver of liability before engaging in some game, sporting event or amusement park isn't worth the papers it's written on.

                                                      [–]Hi_Im_Saxby 100ポイント101ポイント  (54子コメント)

                                                      What do you mean by that? Meaning if I'm injured by doing whatever I signed a waiver for, whatever establishment that made me sign the waiver is still liable?

                                                      [–]Lombdi 188ポイント189ポイント  (37子コメント)

                                                      Yes, if they did not take reasonable care.

                                                      For example, you sign a waiver for sky-diving and your parachute doesn't open, your estate/kin can sue the living shit out of the company.

                                                      [–]PM_ME_UR_BDSM_FETISH 55ポイント56ポイント  (27子コメント)

                                                      Is skydiving in New York common?

                                                      [–]Bravetriforcur 110ポイント111ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                      It is now.

                                                      [–]Actual_Lady_Killer 43ポイント44ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                      NY is 54,556 square miles, there's so much room for activities.

                                                      [–]KingTalis 19ポイント20ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                      Probably, it's a pretty big state.

                                                      [–]Kraymur 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                      the internet is bigger though, you could call it an e-state.

                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (12 返事)

                                                        [–]mr_schneebley 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                        Not just New York, it's every state. A waiver is only good in the event of freak accidents happening in the regular course of the event your attending. A waiver provides the host a legal advantage in a lawsuit to prove the injured party knew the risks of their actions and were negligent anyways, thus placing more liability on the attendee. A waiver however does not give the company or venue a free pass to be actively negligent in someone's injuries.

                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                                                          [–]peterfonda2 48ポイント49ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                                          They can be if they were "actively negligent". Two examples:

                                                          I once handled a matter where a woman broke her ankle ice skating at my client's indoor rink in Queens (the World's Fair rink, for those who know the area). The accident happened when one of her skates hit a divot in the ice surface and she tripped and fell. She had signed a waiver but sued anyway as she claimed that the rink operators negligently failed to keep the ice surface smooth and free of divots.

                                                          A few years later, a woman who was attending an aerobics class at my client's gym tripped over another patron's leg while the class was going on and broke her leg. She sued claiming that the class was overcrowded and that my client negligently failed to keep the class small enough to allow people to exercise safely. She had signed a waiver and she also was well aware of the dangers of flailing your arms and legs around in a roomful of people.

                                                          The upshot is that while waivers have some value, the law renders them practically useless because any plaintiff's lawyer worth his salt will know how to craft a theory alleging active negligence by the party seeking protection by the waiver.

                                                          [–]Jinglejango 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          Yeah pretty much. It's mostly used a deterrent so people THINK they waived their right to sue and don't bother seeing a lawyer.

                                                          [–]pelican737 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                          Copy that in Louisiana. And according to Napoleonic law, its only legal if notarized by a gator.

                                                          [–]Pseudonamous 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                          Similarly, in California non-compete agreements in employment contracts are just about never enforceable. They still get put in contracts mostly as a scare tactic.

                                                          [–]youseeit 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          B&P 16600 is pretty all-inclusive. Basically, if the person isn't a partner in the company or there aren't trade secrets involved, a noncompete is not gonna be enforceable.

                                                          [–]Sky_Haussman 18ポイント19ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                          I know in England and Wales this could actually (potentially) lead to the signatory becoming jointly liable as the waiver (which similarly is of little legal value) is an indication that said activity is a potentially hazardous one and that they were aware beforehand. The effect would be that any potential damages would be reduced.

                                                          [–]Dex22er 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                          Only if not due to the provider's negligence. Any contract term seeking to limit or extinguish liability for death or injury as a result of negligence is void.

                                                          There is the legal maxim volenti non fit injuria which is the voluntary assumption of risk, to which I believe you're referring. This states that liability for injury etc. can be limited if the claimant knew all of the risks and continued regardless. For example, if I sign a waiver to take part in a downhill mountain biking event and fall and injure myself, though not due to the organiser's negligence, my ability to sue would be limited (not the best example but you get the picture).

                                                          [–]JohnMiltonJamesJoyce 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          If it was the parachute drop would still be snapping necks to this day

                                                          [–]MeInTheSpotlight 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          True in most states

                                                          [–]barcodecombover 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          Yeah but if they weren't negligent and you were actively participating in a full contact sport and the contact was within the rules, then you don't really have much of a cause.

                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                                                            [–]Star_Tropic 96ポイント97ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                                            California has some interesting towing laws.

                                                            You can park on someone's private property for 24 hours after the police have been notified if your vehicle is not considered safe to operate on a highway. The vehicle must also not be a camper or dwelling. Unless the property has a sign which must have 4 specific things. It must say it is private property. That vehicles will be towed. The number for the traffic enforcement agency. And the number for the towing company to be used. If it is missing one of those it isn't considered valid.

                                                            So if someone's property doesn't have that specific type of sign, park and remove a tire and throw in the trunk. You got yourself 24 hours at least.

                                                            Also if you show up and your car is in the process of being towed (they are putting it up onto a trailer) the tow truck operator must release your car on the spot and you can only be charged up to half of the cost of the tow.

                                                            [–]MuffinzPlox 31ポイント32ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                                            Well I walked up to my car getting towed and the guy told me "tough shit". He did even have the hook on yet :/

                                                            [–]Nielscorn 30ポイント31ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                            Seems he was a friendly and reasonable person

                                                            [–]coolislandbreeze 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            By industry standards, yep.

                                                            When I've called for a tow or jump-start, they are the nicest guys in the world. But for impound? Doesn't matter how nice you are to them, they've been screamed at enough times to just assume you're about to go completely mental.

                                                            [–]starivore 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            I would've just hopped in the car and told him tough shit as well.

                                                            [–]pantstuff 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                            I've always heard you can just get in your car. They can't tow with you in it.

                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                [–]BurtGummer938 110ポイント111ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                                This became moot last year, but I enjoyed discovering this one. San Antonio had a knife ordinance designed to make carrying a folding knife illegal. State law criminalized possession of a knife longer than 5.5 inches. The ordinance criminalized possession of a folding knife under 5.5 inches.

                                                                Nobody said anything about knives exactly 5.5 inches.

                                                                [–]Individdy 51ポイント52ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                exactly 5.5 inches

                                                                Was going to say that none is exactly 5.5, but 5.5 inches doesn't mean 5.50000000000000000... inches, just that it's between 5.45 and 5.55 inches.

                                                                [–]T_Martensen 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                But >5.5 means ≥5.50...01 (and vice versa) so it would still have to be exactly 5.5 inches.

                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                  [–]JimJonesIII 13ポイント14ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                  How precisely are you measuring this 5.5 inches?

                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                                                    [–]CedarStBlues 384ポイント385ポイント  (53子コメント)

                                                                    If you have a disputed bill, pay with a check. In the "for" line, write "Accord and satisfaction of [describe debt]."

                                                                    If your creditor cashes your check, they're accepting your partial payment to extinguish the debt. Example: you owe the cable company $200. (Fuck cable). You send cable co a $25 check with a notation I've described. They can't go back on you for the remaining $175 (but your cable subscription is probably getting cancelled at the end of the month).

                                                                    If you're on the receiving end of this, indorse the check as "[your name] accepted under protest." In some states that will cover you. Elsewhere, it won't.

                                                                    Source: years and years of finance and securities Litigation. Or these guys: http://www.weisslawstl.com/2005/12/01/accord-satisfaction-how-notation-check-sometimes-unwittingly-resolve-payment-dispute

                                                                    [–]pythonhalp 41ポイント42ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                    If you're on the receiving end of this, would it be better just to not cash the check?

                                                                    [–]LeakyLycanthrope 26ポイント27ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                    If you're on the receiving end of this, indorse the check as "[your name] accepted under protest." In some states that will cover you. Elsewhere, it won't.

                                                                    As in, this would allow you to continue seeking the remainder of the debt?

                                                                    [–]oldguy_on_the_wire 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                    As in, this would allow you to continue seeking the remainder of the debt?

                                                                    I am not the lawyer this world needs, but it seems that doing this would allow you to further pursue the remainder of the debt. That pursuit might involve a court action.

                                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                      [–]Bigthickjuicy 42ポイント43ポイント  (15子コメント)

                                                                      Please tell me that I can pay off student loans this way.

                                                                      [–]michaltee 27ポイント28ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                                                      Why is no one answering this? We NEED answers!

                                                                      [–]2227337 28ポイント29ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                                                      Most likely not. Due to the automation in the process, it is unlikely a person would review checks unless there were an issue. Without some agent of the institution physically approving the check, the institution would be able to make the case that you were acting in bad faith, negating the accordance and satisfaction.

                                                                      [–]PM_ME_TITS_N_KITTENS 12ポイント13ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                                      What if you sent a check by certified mail that required a signature? Then you have proof someone handled the check personally.

                                                                      [–]2227337 10ポイント11ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                                      The person who receives the mail is not necessarily a person with the authority to act as an agent of the company. They may receive the check and forward it to the proper department for processing, which could just be throwing it in the same machine as before.

                                                                      The acting in good faith would still be in play. It would be clear what you were attempting to do, and the loan company has better lawyers than someone in finance, not law, trying to figure out the case law involved by googling it to answer your question. I doubt it would hold up to scrutiny in court, so you would be on the hook for the loans, your legal fees, and most likely the company's legal fees.

                                                                      [–]lcdial 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                      Don't think so. You'd need to have a bone fide dispute as to the legitimacy of the debt. Student loans and mortgages are going to be pretty legit, ie, there will be pretty solid evidence that you meant to borrow the money, that you spent the money, and that you agreed to repay with interest. Aka: a contract.

                                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                        [–]StickyGoodness 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                        In Texas can i use this on unpaid medical bills <$1000?

                                                                        [–]youseeit 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                        There's some confusion in the law in California because the UCC and the corresponding provision in the Civil Code aren't exactly compatible with each other. Strangely enough a lot of courts follow the reasoning of a single reported case from the appellate division of the Superior Court.

                                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (22 返事)

                                                                          [–]buxtronix 29ポイント30ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                                          One for Australians who have received a "fine" in a privately run carpark...

                                                                          Those fines are almost completely unenforceable and they can't even get your name/address through the courts. If you ignore them, they cannot come after you. And they cant force you to pay to leave the carpark.

                                                                          The only legally valid parking fines are those issued or authorised by government agencies (i.e council run, generally).

                                                                          So this basically means for barrier-less carparks, the signs are largely meaningless (except marked disabled spots, they have special legal status), and you can park wherever you want and for however long, and pay nothing. (though carparks with boom gates complicate matters).

                                                                          Source: Our own government. And plenty more information Googling "private car park fines".

                                                                          [–]nevertoolatetogiveup 99ポイント100ポイント  (20子コメント)

                                                                          If you exceed the income limit for a Roth IRA account, you can make a non-deductible contribution to a traditional IRA and then roll that money over to the Roth IRA, thereby circumventing the income limit. Granted, the rollover is a taxable event, but assuming you don't already have money sitting in the traditional IRA from before, the taxable amount should be low or zero as you're rolling the funds over soon after the contribution and therefore likely have very little gain.

                                                                          [–]PM_ME_UR_BDSM_FETISH 137ポイント138ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                                                          This seems like it would be helpful if I had any of those things or knew what they were.

                                                                          [–]waldotherogue 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                          Also known as a "backdoor Roth."

                                                                          [–]68686987698 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                          For people making more than the Roth income limit, if you look at pure dollars, this often doesn't make sense to do, due to higher tax rates at your present income. However, a little known fact about Roth IRAs - you can transfer these to your kids without any sort of taxation. That's a huge deal if your investments have quadrupled or so over your adult lifespan.

                                                                          It won't help you directly, but Roth accounts are a great way to sneak some generational wealth to your shitty kids.

                                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                            [–]probablyredditbefore 113ポイント114ポイント  (14子コメント)

                                                                            If you are being sued by the state in Canada, you can request that you trial be Bilingual (Eng & French) and they must comply.

                                                                            Thus many times they Crown will drop the charges or settle with you if the cost of running the case in both languages if not worth the time (or repeating everything) or money

                                                                            It has gotten my Canadian friend out of many instances of minor traffic/transport stuff

                                                                            [–]cnash 23ポイント24ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                            Bilingual, or conducted in your preferred language?

                                                                            [–]caret-top 21ポイント22ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                            Bilingual. If they have to repeat everything in another language, it will take twice as long and you have to employ an interpreter. I guess it's not worth the extra time and money for small cases.

                                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

                                                                                [–]Zandoray 46ポイント47ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                                                Not really a loop hole but a general advice regarding air travel.

                                                                                If you are air travelling in European Union (inside EU, leaving from or arriving to EU), you have considerably rights under EU legislation when it comes to compensation for delay, overbooking and cancellation. This includes rerouting costs, accommodation, meals and bunch of other stuff.

                                                                                These are peremptory provisions which cannot be altered in a way that impairs passengers' rights.

                                                                                Many airline companies, cough Ryanair cough, do not inform their passenger on these rights and outright try to deny any claims based on airlines own guidelines or agreement terms. This is not however how it works. Your rights under this EU legislation cannot be impaired by airlines' own terms.

                                                                                For more information you can check EU passenger rights

                                                                                [–]talktoten 47ポイント48ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                In Australia you can sue for negligent emotional damage, but unless you have a single physical injury arising from the incident (even a papercut will do), the courts are not allowed to award you any money. They can say, "Well yeah, you're right, it was negligent and you were harmed," but damages are not awarded. I've seen a couple of lawyers use this in "you don't win, you don't pay" suits; their clients win emotional-injury-negligence cases, they just don't get any money out of it, and then they need to pay their lawyer's fees.

                                                                                [–]Calebdog 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                This is a funny thing about Australian law. You can sue for a lot of stuff but damages will only be awarded on tangible, quantifable losses.

                                                                                The only exception is weddings. If your wedding in Australia is ruined due to a service providers stuff up, case law supports damages for emotional trauma.

                                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                                  [–]sadlyecstatic 19ポイント20ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                  Texas has some extremely detailed consumer protection laws which prohibit certain tactics by salespeople. The laws by themselves aren't really anything new but they let you potentially sue for a lot of money if someone scams you.

                                                                                  A scam can be as simple as having knowledge of a mistake by the customer and staying silent. For example: imaging you're buying a cheap camping tent at a store that deals in specialized goods, and you say "wow this is going to work great when I go to Mount Everest where the winds get up to 175 mph!" The salesperson knows the tent can only withstand winds up to 50 miles an hour. If he/she knows the product isn't going to work for your purpose and stays silent, that's akin to deception.

                                                                                  [–]sadlyecstatic 20ポイント21ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                                  I'm not sure if this counts as a loophole - but just know that when you sign a waiver of liability form it accept terms and conditions, you're really not signing your life away. In fact in some situations (and some states more than others) the terms that you agreed to can be invalidated due to a number of reasons: (disparity of bargaining power, too one-sided, inherent pressure in the situation, etc. etc.

                                                                                  So if you ever are thinking "hmmm it's very unfair what happened to me but I did sign that agreement so I can't sue" that isn't true. Your lawyer will find all kinds of reasons why the waiver/acceptance of terms/arbitration agreement/etc. should not be honored by the court, and judges will be receptive to those arguments. Organizations will use their waiver forms to try to dissuade you from litigating, but your signature on a form is not the end of the issue.

                                                                                  [–]SaryuSaryu 55ポイント56ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                                                  This is one for Australians: After the Australia Acts were passed in 1986, the Queen's power in the states was effectively limited to the appointment of the Governors of each state (which by convention is done on the advice of the Chief Minister of the state).

                                                                                  However, the States all made a mistake and had the Queen appointing both the Governors and Lieutenant Governors. The Lieutenant Governor is basically the backup Governor and acts on the Governor's behalf if the Governor is out of the state. What this means is that in theory, any law granted royal assent by a Lieutenant Governor is not actually a valid law in that state.

                                                                                  At some point the Tasmanian Attorney General noticed this issue and alerted all of the states. They changed their process and now the Queen appoints the Governor who immediately turns around and appoints the Lieutenant Governor to make it all above board. Most states also passed laws that would retroactively validate any laws granted Royal Assent by a Lieutenant Governor...but not all states did. Check your state's legislature, you may find that a bunch of your laws were not actually validly enacted.

                                                                                  [–]NameGenerationFailed 26ポイント27ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                  I can't imagine many police or courts are going to care about this argument when you've been arrested. I mean, if you're correct, then you could probably appeal it all the way to the High Court and eventually win on this basis. But it doesn't sound like very useful information overall.

                                                                                  [–]m50d 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                  Happened in the UK with our video classification laws. The law hadn't been submitted to the EU properly so it was invalid. Didn't help the people who had already been fined, and they fixed it the next week, but that one guy was able to get away with it.

                                                                                  [–]fi-ri-ku-su 10ポイント11ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                                                  Why does the Queen's appointing of both the Gov and Lt Gov make all laws passed by the Lt Gov invalid?

                                                                                  [–]poloport 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                  Because she only has the authority to appoint the governor.

                                                                                  That means the Ltd. Governor is just some guy who someone said is the Ltd. Governor

                                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                                                      [–]icxcnika 29ポイント30ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                                      (Not a lawyer but...)

                                                                                      The laws changed in Texas around 5 years ago about what's required to allow for towing a vehicle (e.g. when you park it at a friend's apartment, or at the gas station across the street from where you're actually going). Basically a bunch of extremely particular and strict signage requirements that most businesses didn't meet at the time, and a very large number of them still don't. Because of it, when I lived in Texas, I'd park in a number of "private" spots with impunity... because if you do get towed, you can sue for something like $xxx + TRIPLE damages (so if you were being charged $200 for the tow, plus $300 for leaving it in the tow yard for 30 days, you could sue for something like $1700).

                                                                                      [–]JimJonesIII 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                      But you still don't have a car while its impounded...

                                                                                      [–]icxcnika 25ポイント26ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                      use a taxi, add that to the list of damages

                                                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                                        [–]sadlyecstatic 16ポイント17ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                                                        Here's another thing I think people should know. It would be a stretch to call it a loophole, but it's something many people don't know.:

                                                                                        If you're ever driving down the road and see a car that looks reckless and or drunk, and you consider calling the police but figure "there's no way they'll get here in time to witness this dangerous driving and/or there's nothing they can do about it until it actually causes an accident": CALL THE POLICE. It's quite important if the person does cause an accident down the line* [edit: my typo said "down the liar" - maybe a Freudian slip].

                                                                                        911 calls are used by shrewd lawyers and insurance companies to establish that someone was driving in a reckless manner. Since it's sometimes hard to prove who was responsible for the accident, your 911 call could help the state in prosecuting offense; or could really be the difference in whether someone wins a civil case. When in doubt, just call and report your location, a description of the car, and a license plate if you can give one.

                                                                                        If you're not comfortable calling 911 there is probably a non-emergency number for your local police department so keep that in your phone.

                                                                                        One caveat: 911 only keeps the records of the calls for a limited period of time. So if you see someone on the news and say to yourself "hey, I saw that car driving erratically before that!" don't assume the police already are aware of your call. Contact them and let them know what you did and whether you're willing to serve as a witness.

                                                                                        [–]Chris11246 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                        I've called the non emergency line before because a driver was literally swerving from one shoulder to the other one night. Cars on the other side even had to honk their horn and them to get them back on the right side of the road. The only thing the person on the other side asked me was do you want to file a complaint, and I said no I just want someone to come out before they hurt someone. They then said good night and hung up. They never did send someone out. I'm surprised that person didnt kill someone.

                                                                                        [–]Gfyhhgfffhhtf 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                        I had a car swerve into my lane and side swipe me. They kept driving. I got to the next exit, pulled over and called the police.

                                                                                        The person who side swiped me and the police showed up to my location. The police told me he was issuing us both a ticket because a 911 call indicated that I had switched lanes, not the other driver and he couldn't determine the real situation.

                                                                                        It turns out the other driver called her husband after the accident and told him to call 911. He did and said that his wife was side swiped and she was scared to pull over because she thought I was an aggressive driver. All bullshit but that's what he said.

                                                                                        My insurance company held me partially liable and I had to pay a ticket.

                                                                                        So, yeah, you can call 911 for good or evil.

                                                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                                          [–]rsyay 46ポイント47ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                                                          You can move someone's property if it has no fixed address

                                                                                          [–]-pm-your-boobies-[S] 64ポイント65ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                          This sounds like something that happens in Sunnyvale Trailer Park.

                                                                                          [–]Admiringcone 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                          Are we talking Housos here mate?

                                                                                          [–]NewGenerationSlave 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                                          How is this not just theft?

                                                                                          [–]PM-ME-YO-TITTAYS 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                          Property as in stuff, or property as in a house?

                                                                                          [–]Honkey_Cat 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                          We have a lot of clients who have hospitals and nursing homes hounding them to pay their spouses or parents outstanding bill. If they did not sign as responsible party (as in, the patient signed the form themselves, or the spouse/child signed as power of attorney), they are not responsible for that debt. This is true for credit cards as well.

                                                                                          [–]Xenu3 63ポイント64ポイント  (42子コメント)

                                                                                          jury nullification

                                                                                          [–]acesofclubs 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                          In Australia if you run a commercial enterprise you need to register for the Government State Tax (GST). If you sell certain goods or properties you need to collect 10% of the purchase price, which is the GST, and give it to the federal government.

                                                                                          However, if you're selling real property (land/houses/apartments etc), you don't have to collect this GST and give it to the federal government unless the real property is a new dwelling.

                                                                                          Now:

                                                                                          • Under the GST legislation, a new dwelling does not include land that is subject to a long term lease.

                                                                                          • In Canberra, Australia, all land is subject to a long term lease called a crown lease, under which the federal government leases the land to the owner for 99 years at a time.

                                                                                          Over the past few years nearly all Canberra developers collected GST because they thought they were selling new dwellings. However, the (unintended) long term lease loophole meant that these dwellings weren't actually 'new dwellings'. So the developers wrongly collected the GST (10% of purchase price) from the buyers.

                                                                                          Now some big litigation funders are mounting a class action against the developers on behalf of the buyers to reclaim the GST that was paid.

                                                                                          tl;dr somewhat complex tax loophole is about to make a litigation funder rich in Australia

                                                                                          [–]godzilla532 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                          If you put a grate over your fire pit it's now an outdoor BBQ, and fire bans don't apply.

                                                                                          [–]nearlydeadasababy 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                          UK here, somebody mentioned parking. When you park in a private car park in the UK you enter a contract, terms and conditions will be displayed somewhere.

                                                                                          However civil contracts in the UK cannot contain unfair penalties and so if you do ever get a ticket then they cannot fine you, the best they can hope for is to recover any loss incurred by you parking in the space. So lets say it's £1 to park for an hour and you over stay by 30 minutes, the most they can ask for is 50p. That won't stop them sending you letters demanding all sorts.

                                                                                          Before you all start not paying, read up on it full first and arm yourself with the information.

                                                                                          This isn't the same for council run car parks, parking on the street or parking on Railway land. That's covered under different laws.

                                                                                          [–]zasxqwedc 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                          Jury Nulification, Just knowing this can stop you being on a jury so if you want to, stop reading. Jury Nulification, is when even if one verdict in court is obviously true, the jury is capable of over rulling no matter what due to two rules.

                                                                                          1. The accused cannot be trialed twice for the same infraction

                                                                                          2. The jury cannot be punished for an incorrect choice.

                                                                                          However, don't use this on a jury. as just saying it can get you thrown in jail.

                                                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (57 返事)