Law Questions and Answers

A product i sold to a customer and they installed it may be faulty. Who would own to pay for the labor?

I create a product for motorcycles. I sold one to a dealer. The contractor sold it to his customer and installed it. The customer took it home and said it failed. So, the merchant took it back and looked at the product and did not find a problem, so the customer took it support and claim there be still a problem. I am willing to any slice that may have a problem. The merchant is asking to be reimbursed for his labor. The dealer have sold and installed a lot of this product and have not had any problems approaching this. Who should pay for the labor very soon?
Answers: The dealer is liable for the labor while you are liable for the cost of the chunk. It is part of the dealer's cost of doing business. If this is the first time it happen, they can eat that confidently. If you repeatedly provide faulty parts, afterwards they will eventually stop buying from you. However, you do not have to reimburse the installation payment, legally speaking, as you do not enjoy any control over the cost of installing the parts by the dealer.

Think of it this mode, your ordinary course of business is to construction and sell parts. The dealer's usual course of business is to replace and install the parts. The dealer is contained by the business of provide car service, why should you be burdened next to their business?

Of course, you should take diligence of your dealer if you want repeat business. What you are doing is correct, donate them credit, tell them it is your company's policy not to settlement cash. If they don't similar to it, TOUGH! They can take you to court, over what? $200? $500? Probably not worth the cost of litigation.
In statute, typically, you'd only be responsible for refund the price of the defective item that you sold. The governing language, though, would be "what does it speak in your warranty?"

If the answer is "I don't hold a written warranty policy"... WRITE ONE! Business goes SO much more smoothly when both sides know up front what their rights and responsibilities are.

As a *business* judgment, though, if the dealer sell a lot of your product, isn't it worth the cost of an installation to keep hold of him happy?

Richard
As long as it's not outlandish, I'd recommend taking fastidiousness of your dealer (remember he's out within pushing your product, and installing it from the sound of things). It's a bit unusual for him to charge you for labor, but you can probably work something out with him (an extra point past its sell-by date his next instruct, or a discount on the shipping etc.).

As far as who's liable for the labor, it depends on whether or not the part inferior because it was poorly installed. Since you'd fairly not find yourself in a position of bickering near your dealer, I'd recommend forgoeing that investigation, and merely paying him off somehow.
You are no liable to the verdict of the dealer to spend thier time installing the segment, you are however responsible for the part.

However if the provider does sell a great deal of your goods as a righteous will gesture you should work out a solution that you can both live next to, perhaps consultation him half instrument (I personally would do this by offering credit towards the subsequent order to ensure repeat business) Would it cost more to loose the customer or to repay what he is asking?
Legal contracts aside, I would recommend paying for the job.

It will certainly cement relations beside your dealer. Sometimes the reality that someone does the extra that they are not legally obligated to do can produce the difference in a successful business next to a good reputation, and a mediocre one.
agree beside what others said about maintain relationships.

I would add that surrounded by exchange for making it right with the seller, you will need to re-train the seller in proper installations within order to minimize this issue again.

After adjectives, although you agree to pay for it, ultimately it is agreed it be his installation error that caused the problem.

He might or might not close to that, but his reaction will recount you a lot nearly the kind of business character he is going to be for you. Ultimately even if he does or might react weakly, you can finesse it and still get your road.

Housing question: what to do????

How do you rightfully tell on someone who is living contained by the basement of another personage and paying them rent. Isnt that illegal? What can I do report that. Anyone. ???
Answers: Why is that unauthorized? Anyone can rent out a bedroom or basement of their house to another.
And why would this be unfair? Many people rent unused spaces contained by their homes. Some people rent rooms surrounded by their homes and even supply meals to the tenant. Some people rent their garages.

I can't see where on earth there is anything evil about what you describe.

If you get sued for $750,000 if you dont enjoy the money can they put you in penal complex?

Answers: No debitor's prison in the US
Not surrounded by the U.S.A.

If you lose the suit, they can garnish your wages and put liens on your property though.
No. There are no debtors prisons contained by the US

Why do people articulate that our country's laws are defined bo the ten commandments when several of the ten?

commandments hold no component in our law...such as the one dealing with religion and the worshiping of idol. The reason is that we know profusely more about the world and enjoy moved away from such things.
Answers: Religious fanatics approaching to attribute much to their dogma as the basis for everything, but havent thought it through co they are infalable similar to the Pope. But the meek will inherit the earth (if thats alright beside those fanatics)
The constitution of the USA seperates church and government
The first commandment is completely specific to religion, however the remaining 9 do make a angelic blueprint for a moral society, and that is why some read out our laws are defined by the 10 commandments. I don't construe defined is the right word, perhaps inspired? IMO, adjectives good moral societies will construct law resembling the last 9 commandments, they are a perfect guide, whether you are religious or not.

Edit: scratch that, 6 of them are fine (strike the 1st, strike adultery, strike honor mother and father and the sabbath and you own a decent moral code).
That position also assumes that murder and disorder is allowed in Buhddist and Hindu nation, and that nations allowed that liberal of behavior before Christianity or Judeaism come into play.

The thing is, law have be around since Hammurabi. To believe that justice and freedom are exclusive to Judeao-Christian beliefs is ignorance and arrogance.

The writings that influenced the Founding Fathers argued in the region of universal, HUMANISTIC values, that transcend religions.
Actually, in attendance used to be "blue" laws on files that prevented the sale of cut meat on Sundays, and contained by some cases, disallowed business to even be open on Sunday. (keeping the Sabbath holy).

As far as coveting and infidelity be in motion...check the divorce laws surrounded by your state...either recent or departed. The principal and only valid grounds for divorce until recent times be adultery...infidelity.

Yes, the Ten Commandments did play a role in the nouns of our legal civil and criminal codes.
Well hell, if we would only just concentrate on lying, stealing and killing, would that not be satisfactory?

Are those who defend child rapists & child killer happy the release penalty have been abolish in New Jersey?

I bet Gov Corzine is over the moon that he prefers to defend the rights of child rapists & child killer than the right of the children that are raped & murdered. And please don't give me that crap that we shouldn't sort out who lives & who dies. I'm so fed up next to those who think the go of an innocent child is worthless while thinking the life of a child rapist & slaughterer is more worth saving.

Jesse Timmendequas is the sex perpetrator who murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. The satchel inspired Megan's Law, which requires law enforcement agencies to notify the public in the order of convicted sex offenders living surrounded by their communities.

Congratulations criminal lovers. . You saved the time of a man who had no problem raping & butchery an innocent little girl. I hope that makes you ancestors happy.
Answers: People are using the defense that near are many individuals wrongly charged beside crimes that they in certainty didn't commit. This does not excuse or justify the abolishment of the loss penalty. If you murder out of cold blood or molest or harm an innocent child or any other personality, you do not deserve to live. The law allows a infallible amount of appeals in an attempt to prove guilt and baptize the exact violator. Imagine how many guilty party get out of lock up free and go on to commit more crimes. I apologize for those individuals who own been victims of circumstance but I would fairly imprison the innocent for further inquisitive and investigation than to not "want to violate someone's human rights." We have to conjecture logically here. You are right. I too nelieve inan eye for an eye. We are speaking of monsters. There is no saving these monsters and in attendance is no rehabilitation for the type of people who can rip the energy away from a child. Anyway, this angers me too. Thank you for caring. We want more people who do.
and obviously YOU on the other side most likely enjoy NO PROBLEM with the certainty that hundreds who have be convicted and sentenced to die were following proven innocent !!


I detest child molesters but our system is failable !!

In a recent case a niece who testify 10 yrs ago that it was her uncle who climbed inbedroom fanlight and raped her was proven wrong, the man down the street be caught doing another 12 year old and his DNA matched her panties from 10 yrs ago, THAT MAN WAS INNOCENT AND SPENT 10 YRS IN PRISON !!!
If someone be ever able to come up beside a 100% infallible way of convicting the right party, and ONLY the right person, next I'd support the death cost no problem.

The problem is, that isn't the case.

PA executed a guy for murdering his wife - who after that turned up alive and well and living beneath a false name next to her new boyfriend.

Texas executed a guy for murdering a store clerk and latter discovered there be an error in his prison chronicles, and that he was released from prison the light of day AFTER the robbery, not the day formerly as they told the jury.

New York sent 4 black teenagers to jail for years after they pled guilty to the gang rape and effective killing of the "important park jogger". No DNA testing be done on the evidence because they "didn't need to" - the kids pled guilty. Later the material rapist bragged about the crime, and a style guru ordered DNA testing. The 4 kids be innocent - they had pled guilty because the DA threatended them that if they didn't he'd enjoy them put into the adult common population at Rikers, where they could expect to be gang-raped themselves.

In the final 5 years the innocence project alone has proven the innocence, through DNA trialling, of over 200 wrongfully convicted "rapists and murderers". Since there is DNA evidence to testing in lone about 5% of criminal cases, how heaps of the 95% of convicted criminals who have no coincidence of getting any DNA evidence to exonerate them are actually innocent?

Richard
I'm sure the attorney's and the criminals are drastically happy near will be no death cost. They are now free to rape & shoot children and anybody else they choose.

I personally have a feeling they should get impossible to tell apart punishment they gave that poor, defenseless child, who could not and be not strong enough to stand up for themselves.
Why is it that the solitary argument that comes back is going on for the "innocent criminal "? I'm sorry, I have never hear of an innocent criminal, be it a rapist, killer, dune robber, shooter or whatever. Bad part of a set about trying to vote them out is the problem go much deeper than that. It's the Judges, the lawyers, the criminal defender, all the means of access down the line. Which brings us hindmost to what??? It's all around the money. Maybe we need to shift back to bounty hunters or vigilantes. An even better concept...a lynching party. It's time for someone to start thinking just about the victims here n not spend so much time protecting criminals. Money is the root of all evil.oh h^ll yes it is. The more you own the more you get away next to. Like I've said before, nobody have the right to take a go...what ya'll are missing here is your thinking says it's alright for somebody to execute or rape an innocent child or anybody they choose & just step to jail.
Bring on the thumbs down, but please regard as about it first. Correction: It be called to my attention around my saying I've never hear of an innocent criminal which was misunderstood. What I expected was if the character is proven guilty by a jury with the DNA evidence they cannot be considered innocent. Does that clarify things???
The voters of New Jersey will hold the last word on this issue. 1994 be a long time ago, people verbs. That's just how it is.
I've other been on the balustrade about the departure penalty issue. You own to admit, near have be innocent people who be sent to jail for 20+ years. Now that isn't moderately fair, is it? What if that be you?

But, on the other hand, murderers and child rapists who own been proven guilty should die, within my opinion. They should die the method their victims did. I have no sympathy for folks who are cold hard criminals.

So, i stand wavering. But I guess there isn't much we can really do in the region of it because i believe our political system is totally screwed up.

Should i be scared? i live contained by NJ..hmm
New Jersey did the right thing and within the right way. It instituted a year long study commission past taking up an abolition bill. Among the many witnesses in the past the commission were family of murder victims who do not support the death cost. I gave a connect to the commission report, below.

You don't have to sympathize beside criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the disappearance penalty prevents or even reduce crime and to think more or less the risks of executing innocent people. Your give somebody the third degree is much too important to settle minus thinking about these.

125 nation on death rows enjoy been released beside proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available within less than 10% of adjectives homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The departure penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the departure penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The loss penalty is neither. Homicide rates are high in states and regions that enjoy it than in those that don’t.

We own a good alternative. Life in need parole is now on files in 48 states. It medium what it says. It is sure and swift and from time to time appealed. Life without parole is smaller amount expensive than the death cost.

The death cost costs much more than life within prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent associates.

The death cost isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyer. It doesn't apply to people near money. When is the last time a booming person be on death row, tolerate alone executed?

The death cost doesn't necessarily help family of murder victims. Murder victim ethnic group members across the country argue that the drawn-out extermination penalty process is itchy for them and that life in need parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent population released from death row have already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

When Is The Approriate Time To Read The Will?

Is it right after the burial where everyone is at hand or do we have to lurk until the attorney is present? And what if one of the beneficiary is living in another country, how would that individual gets what he is entitled to?
My aunt died and she have another child living in another country but her children here are so greedy that they don't want to share it next to their brother who couldn't come here. They said that his name be not on the will but their mother mentioned it to him when she was still living that he will be taken strictness of if something happen to her. The children here are much ably off than their brother backbone home who is struggling just to generate ends meet. He is the solely one who really cared for his mother. He be devastated when his mother died, he didn't even get to bargain to her before she passed on because his siblings here didn't even tolerate him know. He just hear about it from another relatives member. What can he do to clear sure he gets what he is entitled to?
Answers: The answer really depends on frequent circumstance. But an official document from the American Red Cross giving instructions for what should be done after a disaster say:

"If possible, read the will including all amendments (called codicils) and any related trust documents previously the funeral or soon afterwards. One reason for reading the will promptly is that in attendance are time limits for submitting a will to probate court as the first step surrounded by settling an estate. If there is no will, the court will appoint an administrator to settle the estate and will divide the property among the survivors according to state law."

While the time urgency may be less contained by non-disaster situations, the reasons for reading the will rash -- i.e., before or a moment ago after the funeral -- still apply.

What to name a child?

Do you give attention to the little boy's parents should have be aloud call him Friday or do you deem it was right for the Judge to force the parents to appointment him Gregory?
http://uk.report.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071218/t...
Answers: This is just another valise of political correctness gone wild.

"The tribunal said it be protecting the child from being the butt of joke ..." - I guess they can see into the future!

"...an administrative norm which bar parents from giving "ridiculous or shameful" first names to children." - It doesn't even nouns like it's the statute, just what most parent as a rule do.

"The appeals court ruled against Friday because it recalled the servile savage within Daniel Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe..." - I guess that finances Timothy can't be used either because that be the name of the Oklahoma City Bomber. Or Theodore because that be the Unibomber and also the name of a serial slayer (Ted Bundy).

At least they didn't articulate they can't call the child "Friday" as a label. That would have really be over the edge.
I have an idea that that is the stupidest item I have ever hear in my duration. The kicker to me was that "Friday" person the name of a savage surrounded by a book was the clincher for the court.

I miserable I think it's a stupid baptize - and the parents should have be slapped for giving their kid a dumb name - but it's their kids and they should hold been allowed to label it what they liked.
Every country have their own laws. I infer why the tribunal changed his name. I don't feel it is right they should be able to given name their child whatever they want. No one can see if this child will be the butt cease of jokes or not. He may be a NERD! They catch picked on a lot. So not a soul really knows how it is going to turn out!

Why is it called "involuntary manslaughter"?

If a people goes out to drink-
have 2 much to drink-
gets at the rear the wheel of his/her motor and as a result causes a leading accident and relations die..but he walks away near just a few bumps and bruises.

He know what he was doing when he walk into the bar
He know what he was doing when he be order adjectives his drinks
he knew he didn't own a ride home

I know he didn't plan on killing innocent family but he knew what he be doing could kill someone one. So why does he draw from off near a ligher sentence than someone who commits murder ??
Answers: Because the citizens of the state (that would be you) did not let their legislature know that this should not crop up.
Personally I think drunk driving crashes are premeditated murder -- but as the entity did not "plan to kill" someone..they get sour with a lower sentence.

I agree with you - within is no accident near drunk drivers. There are intentional actions that give somebody a lift them to that point.
Well it is involuntary manslaughter because he wasn't attempting to kill anyone and he really didn't try to, it only happened. The difference between this and first or second amount murder is that basicly he didn't preplan it or anything like that, so it's not a premeditated murder similar to first degree and it wasn't a boil of the moment action, so it isn't second amount. It was an accedent and involuntary.

Not dictum I agree with it, and somtimes they are charged and convicted beside first or second degree murder. But explicitly a basic explanation.
You are right unsurprisingly, but symantics... he may have intended to enjoy a drink. How many drinks? How frequent should the bar tender hold given him? How many key should the bartender take up when he serves the first drink?

There is profoundly of responsibility here, and it does begin near the man who bent his elbow and took that first drink, but there are responsibilities of others--the waitress who served him, the bartender who poured the drink...

It's involuntary because he did not intend to do it. Clear cut. It is manslaughter because it happen anyway.

There are not a lot of ancestors who go out on a hours of darkness on the town and think past they start: "You know, I think I'll drink too much, surpass out behind the controls of my car, and run over a couple of innocent pedestrians tonight."

That is why it is not voluntary... They did not punch the gas, aim at the personage, and gun the engine to be sure they killed the target.

I apologize for your plight, believe that drunk drivers should all be at the rear bars until drinking is no longer an issue, and should not carry off straightforward...

I'm just explaining the path things are.
Because he was merely careless in his conduct, and the negligence rose to the height of criminal conduct.

Conversely, the person charged near 2nd degree murder or voluntary manslaughter busy in conduct intended to annihilate.

The main difference is the height of intent required to commit the crime.

** Note: This answer has not created an attorney-client relationship. This is a nonspecific discussion of the subject matter of your request for information and not legal guidance. Local laws or your extraordinary situation may change the nonspecific rules. For a specific answer to your question you should consult permitted counsel with whom you can discuss adjectives the facts of your case. **

Do you think a soul who employees bent immigrants?

This entity I know is knowingly employeeing off the record immigrants, should he be sheriff?
Answers: Not no...he!! no.

As a thing of fact, I would turn him surrounded by to INS.

IMHO, we should have HUGE fines and lock up sentences for those who knowingly employ illegals. If they lived around me, my legal immigrant in-laws and my first equals born in America wife would be sure that his force were deported, and he is charged next to employing them. It IS a crime.
Prove it.

"I enjoy the documents in my hand. I worked for the man!" - So you have Mexican passports and sworn statements that they don't own green cards? What documents show someone is illegal?

If you enjoy actual proof why are you trolling on here instead of having this investigated?
I doubt you know anything of the sort, I reckon you basically THINK you know.

Put up or shut up..go to the authorities next to what you "know".

My son's father died two weeks ago. There is no Declaration of Paternity, yet . . .?

near is a paper trail of monthly support payments and evidence wherein my son is covered by his father's robustness insurance. What should I do to determine if my son's father provided for him through his Will or possibly a potential probate action
Answers: Start by checking next to the probate court to determine that there IS a will; or support them that you are a potential heir contained by the event that there is no will and an administrator is appointed for an intestate estate. Notify his subsequent of kin as well as anyone you believe might be call on to administer the estate that he has a possible son to include as an descendant; do it certified and keep the reciepts.
You can record the probate action on behalf of your child. You should assume no will unless you can find one. The certainty that your son was covered by his condition insurance should be sufficient to determine paternity and heirship.

** Note: This answer have not created an attorney-client relationship. This is a general discussion of the subject concern of your question and not allowed advice. Local law or your particular situation may changeover the general rules. For a specific answer to your cross-question you should consult legal counsel beside whom you can discuss all the facts of your covering. **

More Questions and Answers:
[288] - [1545] - [1498] - [367] - [1463] - [378] - [155] - [536] - [1203] - [501] - [2430] - [1564] - [826] - [203] - [2091] - [1023] - [2201] - [1580] - [1746] - [2497]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: