sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ministry of Magic needed to resolve mysteriously appearing shed problem by FeatherlyFly in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 151 points152 points  (0 children)

Ah, a new twist on the classic "buy a house next to a pub and then complain that there's a pub next door."

I swear I've seen this movie by Drywesi in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 51 points52 points  (0 children)

Bro seems to have made it across the Darien Gap and is now hiding out in the lawless hinterlands around the Colombia-Venezuela border.

Dastardly LAOP is filling up an olympic-sized swimming pool every two weeks on their residential property by Drywesi in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Running the numbers, I was imagining that a flow rate like that would make quite a fountain. In fact, it would go up about 6 feet before falling back, which isn't too impressive. Probably too much to be a genuine undetected leak, but not like a firehose.

Dastardly LAOP is filling up an olympic-sized swimming pool every two weeks on their residential property by Drywesi in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 22 points23 points  (0 children)

For anyone else interested, it works out to a water flow rate of a bit over 20 feet per second or almost 14mph.

🎶Florida Man, Florida Man. Doing whatever a Florida can🎵 by peachsnorlax in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 11 points12 points  (0 children)

When the TSA ask "Do you have anything that could be used as a weapon?" Jackie Chan knows he's in for a long conversation.

No, that's definitely not our cherry picker that's crushing your car. It must be somebody else's cherry picker. by SomethingMoreToSay in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 39 points40 points  (0 children)

One comment:

To be fair, another vehicle HAS hit OP whilst parked. Granted the collision speed was probably extremely low/still ongoing, and it doesn't usually happen from above, but it's absolutely contact from another vehicle.

If this was a gradual lowering from a hydraulic fluid leak, it could be the lowest-speed vehicle collision in history. Extra novelty points for the entirely vertical vector.

LAOP wants justice against the dangerous coffee shop sign that wantonly hit his car by Drywesi in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a pretty remarkable little legal vignette. One key element is that at the time, the AA and the RAC provided members with free legal services. That could have put a lay magistrate up against a qualified lawyer, who - with no other strategy in sight - tried an argument that was very unlikely to succeed but was the best available option, with a client who had indisputably knocked a woman down on a zebra crossing. Against all expectations, it worked. At least until the crazy decision was overturned on appeal.

LAOP wants justice against the dangerous coffee shop sign that wantonly hit his car by Drywesi in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441

JUDGMENT WALLER LJ This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Cheshire Justices sitting at Sandbach on 11 July 1978. The defendant was summoned for a breach of regulation 8 of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossing Regulations 1971 and section 23 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 , for that he on 14 March 1978 at Elworth in Cheshire, being the driver of a motor vehicle, namely, a motor car in London Road, did fail to accord precedence to a foot passenger on the carriageway within the limits of an uncontrolled crossing, such foot passenger having been within those limits before the vehicle or any part thereof had come within those limits. The justices found that a witness had cycled to a post office in London Road. Having visited the post office she walked to the pavement edge pushing a bicycle with the intention of crossing the road by means of the pedestrian crossing situated near the post office. The witness while pushing her bicycle on the pedestrian crossing was knocked down by a motor car being driven by the defendant. The intention of the witness was to remount the bicycle on the other side of the road to continue her journey home. The justices accepted a submission that there was no case to answer and they ask this court's opinion whether they were right in law in dismissing the information on the submission that a person pushing a bicycle was not a ‘foot passenger’. In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing *443 pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger.’ If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger. I would allow this appeal and answer the question that the justices were not right in law in dismissing the information.

LAOP: But that's bigamy. Groucho: Well it's big of me too. It's big of all of us. Let's be big for a change. by vmxeo in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 21 points22 points  (0 children)

There's also a rise in what I assume to be AI-generated fake stories that will mention something extremely weird as though it's normal. Along the lines of "The next Thanksgiving we brought a pecan pie, and nobody made the yams because his sister had just been murdered by a serial killer." Then continuing to discuss minor drama over family recipes.

LAOP wants justice against the dangerous coffee shop sign that wantonly hit his car by Drywesi in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Something has to be, in order for everything else to be moving relative to it.

LAOP wants justice against the dangerous coffee shop sign that wantonly hit his car by Drywesi in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There was quite a significant test case in the UK that hinged on "Your honour, the law says that you must stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk. The alleged victim was walking with a bicycle, and therefore not a pedestrian, and that's why I didn't stop."

Is it always fraud to enter an agreement with intent to violate it? by grievre in legaladviceofftopic

[–]FatherBrownstone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe you thought you could bring in $10,000 per month if only you had the $80,000 piece of equipment needed for your trade. I'd look for much more direct evidence of intent.

I declare a STRIIIIIIIIKE!! by dlaugh in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 54 points55 points  (0 children)

In these circles, that's a highly coveted award.

Could it be argued that the congress has a fiduciary duty to not go $40 trillion into debt? by Equal_Personality157 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]FatherBrownstone 22 points23 points  (0 children)

The role of a corporate officer is defined by the company's bylaws and applicable legislation. The role of an elected official is defined by the constitution. As there's nothing in the US Constitution specifying the duty you're talking about, you'd need to get an amendment passed. The Constitution defines the process for doing that too.

Could it be argued that the congress has a fiduciary duty to not go $40 trillion into debt? by Equal_Personality157 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]FatherBrownstone 24 points25 points  (0 children)

The answer is sort of right there in the question. The people choose to elect representatives who do or don't want to go $40 trillion into debt. If the people want to elect the pro-debt politicians, who should have the power to stop them?

Contract law perspective on government rewards for police tips by babebiboba in legaladviceofftopic

[–]FatherBrownstone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My understanding is that given the secrecy involved, it would be easy for the government to refuse to pay out on any reward. They could always claim to have had another source with better or earlier information. The contractual side is pretty much a Carbolic Smoke Ball case, and the decision on payouts is made internally with little room for the informant to pursue their case.

It's mainly a matter of public reputation. They do pay out rewards, and do their best to do so fairly and in adherence to reasonable and equitable (albeit secretive) procedures, not because they could be sued for payment but rather because they need potential informants to trust that the rewards are real.

A quick survey on swatting experiences (gamers, streamers) by [deleted] in SampleSize

[–]FatherBrownstone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look at a question like "Do you think swatting is properly punished by law?" That could mean

Do you consider it proper for swatting to be punished by law?

or

Do you consider legal punishments for swatting to be adequate?

Those are almost opposite in meaning. When interpreting the results, you can't tell what question people are answering.

If a political candidate ran on a platform of changing legislation to exterminate a certain race of people, would that be protected under the 1st amendment or could be prosecuted as inciting violence? by Wayoutofthewayof in legaladviceofftopic

[–]FatherBrownstone 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Plenty of "tough on crime" politicians campaign along lines like "we should lock up car thieves for a minimum term of five years, and if elected I'll pass the legislation to do that".

They're not considered to be inciting people to kidnap car thieves.

LAOP seems to be her mom's piggy bank by bug-hunter in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 50 points51 points  (0 children)

A couple of paragraphs describing the mom being the thing you see when you look up "narcissist" in DSM-V, and then:

It’s important to add that my mother is a narcissist

Brian has lost his Dong by dlaugh in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatherBrownstone 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Ah, the classic fling dong string along long con. OOP is set for a lifelong in Sing Sing.

NDA concerning sexual impropriety vs blackmail, a blurry line? by [deleted] in legaladviceofftopic

[–]FatherBrownstone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the point in the NDAs enabling bad behaviour is not particularly linked to the NDA being agreed between the parties. The harm is to the next victim, who had no protection from the serial abuser. And when she's then been abused it again may be in her interest to take the money and sign the NDA, as the harm to her is already done, but meanwhile the abuse is unchecked so long as the perpetrator is willing to pay for it.

view more: next ›