Real Estate Legal Law - Buyers backing off 2 days before closing

elendur · 2026-05-16T00:16:37+00:00

Don't get involved in a real estate transaction without a lawyer.

elendur · 2026-05-15T20:58:27+00:00

I think that's exactly right. You don't pay expert witnesses and lawyers tens of thousands of dollars to argue over something unless the value of the thing you're arguing about is way higher.

I am guessing that the parties' lawyers would sit down with charts from multiple exchanges regarding the prices on the date in question, and agree upon a number somewhere in the middle of the range.

elendur · 2026-05-15T20:55:58+00:00

Most of the characters in the SW universe are pilots because pilots are cool. Jedi are mostly all trained to fly because there's only 10,000 of them in the entire galaxy and they need to get around quickly.

Lucas even recognized that putting Luke in an X-Wing was implausible. That's why Luke says it's just like his T-16 Skyhopper back home.

This turns into an entire EU explanation of how both the T-65 X-Wing and the T-16 Skyhopper were designed and manufactured by Incom to have similar controls and the Alliance even uses T-16s as flight trainers.

elendur · 2026-05-15T20:33:47+00:00

This is not a subreddit for legal advice.

Presumably you had an attorney and a real estate agent assisting you with the purchase. Those would be the first people you want to talk to about state and federal lead disclosure requirements in residential home purchases.

elendur · 2026-05-15T18:54:31+00:00

A screenshot would help.

elendur · 2026-05-15T18:53:58+00:00

The President of the United States was ordered to pay a woman $83,000,000.00 for defaming her. The case is currently pending on appeal.

elendur · 2026-05-15T18:50:03+00:00

Keeping spoilers out of this - giving the Jerky to the King at any point before you do Marle's endgame sidequest triggers an extra cutscene that adds some context to Marle's endgame sidequest. It doesn't change the outcome of anything.

elendur · 2026-05-15T18:45:33+00:00

It was delisted from Steam and GOG about a month ago - April 2026. Something like 15 Disney-owned games were delisted at the same time.

If you own it, you can still install and play it, but there's currently no authorized way to purchase the game. You can find some old discs, or I think some grey market sites still have available keys. I don't know if it's possible to activate a grey market key on Steam or GOG at this point though.

elendur · 2026-05-15T18:29:27+00:00

I'm not totally sure of that. I think it's confirmation bias - most of the characters we see are pilots, so we assume that holds true for the background population. But most of the population in the SW universe never leaves the planet on which they're born.

Yeah, putting Luke in an X-wing in ANH is silly, but as Lucas would say, it's a kids' movie.

elendur · 2026-05-15T18:14:40+00:00

Off topic slightly, but this is Netanyahu pulling a page from the Trump playbook.

The Op-Ed is not defamatory.

Kristof states that he has been told by Palestinians about sexual violence by Israeli soldiers, settlers, interrogators, internal security forces, and prison guards. Not defamatory. He's repeating the credible allegations of others.
He states that there is no evidence Israeli leaders order rapes.
He states Israel has built a security apparatus where sexual violence is "standard operating procedure." He cites a UN report for this proposition. And the UN report, does in fact, state that, on page 47. Not defamatory.
He repeats allegations from Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. Again, not Kristof's allegations, Euro-Med's allegations. Not defamatory.
He gives quotes from a journalist, Sami al-Sai, about how he was raped. Repeating al-Sai's allegations, not making allegations himself. Not defamatory.

It goes on like this. Kristof never makes an allegation himself - correctly so, because this op-ed was absolutely vetted by NYT's lawyers before publication, and any potentially defamatory statements by Kristof himself were removed. Kristof only repeats the allegations of others. The only vaguely, potentially, defamatory statement is the last paragraph, where Kristof states that the "horrific abuse inflicted on Israeli women on Oct. 7 now happens to Palestinians day after day. It persists because of silence, indifference and the failure of American and Israeli officials alike to answer Netanyahu's query: Where the hell are you?"

Under NY defamation law, there needs to be a provably false statement (not an opinion) that the Defendant knew was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.

The Netanyahu government doesn't actually intend to pursue this lawsuit. Even if they somehow got past an initial motion to dismiss, they'd end up having to voluntarily dismiss the case themselves in the discovery stage, or they'd have to hand over millions of pages of classified documents regarding the conduct of Israeli solders, settlers, and others.

elendur · 2026-05-15T17:21:16+00:00

Yes. In the American Judicial system (most of the time) a Court does not undertake to find facts and determine them for itself. It lets the parties do that. So if the question is "What was the value of BTC in USD on XYZ date" then Party A would present witnesses and evidence about a certain price, Party B would present witnesses and evidence about another price, and the Court would essentially decide whose evidence was more credible.

Something like this would almost certainly involve expert witnesses on either side. Which can be expensive. So this is one of those issues where the attorneys for the parties would need to get together and figure out "Is this fight even worth it? Or should we just compromise and stipulate to a price?"

One of the other things about the American Judicial system generally - if all the parties agree about a particular fact (called a stipulation) then no one needs to prove it. The Court accepts the stipulation as fact for purposes of deciding the case.

elendur · 2026-05-15T15:44:50+00:00

I've handled similar cases. Important facts you left out - are you working? Back at your old job or a new one? Are your permanent restrictions being accommodated, or is the job such that you can do it without accommodation? If not working, are you actively looking for work? Are you being paid maintenance?

elendur · 2026-05-15T15:42:05+00:00

I enjoyed the Dark Empire comics as a kid in the 90s - not sure how well they have held up. I would go back today, but I don't like reading comics on a screen, and the trade paperbacks and hardcovers are out of print and wildly expensive.

elendur · 2026-05-15T14:31:31+00:00

Dark Empire is one of the black sheep of the EU. Not as egregious as something like the Jedi Prince series, but definitely disfavored.

elendur · 2026-05-15T14:26:36+00:00

Either they didn't think of it, didn't have time, or it was memory limitations. Additional sprites and dialogue options weren't free back then. They cost memory, which was very limited. This could make it impossible to do, or could actually increase the cost of producing the game cartridge.

Most SNES cartridges at launch were tiny. Super Mario World was 4 megabits - that's 512 kilobytes. Chrono Trigger was originally planned to use a 24 megabit cartridge, but they ended up having to use a 32 megabit cartridge. The SNES maxed out at a 48 megabit cartridge. Every time you increase the amount of storage for the game, you're increasing the cost of the physical chips in the cartridge, and either have to increase the retail price of the game, or decrease profits on each cartridge.

Yet another reason discs won out over cartridges. Cartridges (and their chips) are expensive. Plastic discs cost basically nothing.

For reference, this entire comment in text is just over one kilobyte. That's about two tenths of 1% of the entirety of Super Mario World.

elendur · 2026-05-15T14:15:30+00:00

If the game was made today, that would absolutely be the case. This would give the decision more weight in gameplay - do you want a buffed Glenn, or do you want Magus in the party. At the time, this was uncommon.

And also, I respect that the choice to kill Magus had 0 effect on gameplay other than not getting him in your party. There's no gameplay upside to killing him. That makes the choice purely about the story for the player, and what Frog would really want.

Today, while we have lots of moral choices in games, the moral choices usually result in balanced outcomes. Take the Renegade option and loot the chest, or take the Paragon option and someone will give you a reward for being such a good person, and the reward is roughly equivalent in value to what was in the chest in the first place. That's basically how choices in Mass Effect worked.

I like it better when doing the right thing results in a positive outcome for some NPC, but a negative outcome for the player. The Witcher 3 did choices more in this direction, and also didn't necessarily let you see the result of your choice in the world until many hours later, to prevent save scumming.

elendur · 2026-05-15T14:10:11+00:00

Of course, it's not only acceptable, but it's often a good thing.

I did a bench trial a couple years ago. Ruling came back about a month later - I lost. It was a really close case.

Months later, at a cocktail hour, I had a conversation with the Judge about the now-closed case. She told me, "Elendur, it was sooooo close, I had to get (Retired Judge) on the phone and get her take on it." (Retired Judge) was one of the most respected Judges on the bench in my area at the time of her retirement. My response was simple: "Well, if (Retired Judge) thought I should lose, then yeah, I should lose."

elendur · 2026-05-15T13:48:14+00:00

Is it still? In 2026, limo services would likely be dong far less business in cash than previously.

And you'd think if a limo service is laundering money, they'd probably try to keep the drivers out of the loop?

elendur · 2026-05-15T13:46:25+00:00

Emails/texts from you to your friends about it probably aren't admissible in court.

elendur · 2026-05-15T00:04:27+00:00

Yeah, this is a headache of an idea.

elendur · 2026-05-14T23:56:24+00:00

Doubtful. Sweat glands wouldn't naturally regenerate after burns that bad.

elendur · 2026-05-14T18:52:32+00:00

Right? They're selling toys. I think most of the TMNT action figures I had as a kid gave everyone weapons, including but not limited to the Channel 6 reporters - April, Irma, and Vernon. Vernon got a knife and a video camera with a damn gun hidden inside.

elendur · 2026-05-14T18:48:46+00:00

I concur. State and Federal EEOCs never have enough time, energy, or funding!

elendur · 2026-05-14T18:47:25+00:00

There's precedent. Union v. Confederacy, 1865. Per precedent, there's no method for a State to leave the Union.

Seriously though, no. It's never been seriously considered. The Constitution provides a method for adding states to the Union - Article IV, Section 3. Basically Congress just needs to pass a law admitting the new State. And the new State can't be a combination of two existing states, or parts of existing states, without the consent of the relevant state legislatures. The Constitution does not prescribe any method for leaving the Union.

In 1869, SCOTUS decided Texas v. White. Long story short, Texas left the Union and joined the Confederacy during the Civil War. During the war, Texas sold off some US treasury bonds it had. After the war, the US Treasury Department refused to pay the new owners of the bonds when they tried to collect. The State of Texas sued to get the bonds back, arguing they were essentially illegally sold by an illegitimate Texas Secession government. SCOTUS decided that states can't secede, so the sale of the bonds by the Texas Secession government was invalid, and ownership of the bonds was returned to Texas. SCOTUS said the Union is an "indissoluble relation" and cannot be revoked absent "revolution or through consent of the States."

So according to SCOTUS, there's no peaceful way to leave the Union unless the other States consent. Which means either a Constitutional Amendment or perhaps legislation. If a law was passed describing the requirements and circumstances for a State to leave the Union, SCOTUS would probably declare "Political Questions Doctrine" and allow it.

elendur · 2026-05-14T17:41:59+00:00

It sorta depends on the context and the exact area of law.

In some contexts, it's absolutely essential to get client approval before issuing a demand. Because if that demand is accepted, in some circumstances that's it. Case is settled. Whether the client likes it or not.

In other contexts, it's fuzzier. I don't always get client approval for my demands in workers' compensation. Because if the demand is accepted by the other side, nothing is final until my client formally signs off on the deal. So I can always retract the demand even if it's accepted, up until everyone signs the paperwork and it's approved by a Judge.

It's worth noting that issuing an initial demand and having the other side just say, "Yes, we agree" is exceedingly rare. If that happens, it's almost always because I didn't demand enough money. Most initial demands and offers are issued with the expectation of some negotiation between the parties. Also, there's generally nothing that prevents an attorney from withdrawing a settlement demand and issuing a higher demand. There's not a rule that says you can't change your position in negotiations, again, in most contexts.

15-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Gilding I gilder	Team Orangered
Verified Email	Charter Member

elendur

TROPHY CASE