Basic legal things everyone should know

[eviljeff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
depends on when the parties intended the agreement would be complete.

there are two ways of looking at it:

John made an offer and rescinded it before the co. accepted.
Co. made an offer and John accepted, then tried to back out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please explain how John's signing of the contract could be viewed as an offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because it is more common for the co. to make the offer doesn't mean it can't happen the other way. For example, say the co. faxed him a job offer with salary X. John faxes back the same contract signed, but has crossed out X and written Y.

edit: the short answer is that the co. does not have to sign the contract, if that's how the parties intended it to go down. however if you bring a piece of paper to a judge and it has John's signature and then a blank line next to "signature of the co.", well...

[En Passant]

I see what you're saying, thanks.

[ergo]

I am a lawyer, and the most important advice I can give is this: talk to a reputable, skilled lawyer before starting any significant undertaking or signing any important document. This includes: (i) buying a home, (ii) starting a business (especially if other individuals are involved), (iii) making and selling products, (iv) employment agreements, etc.

Most lawyers I know don't sweat the smaller stuff. For example, the guy who is replacing my fence at home for ~$3k is doing it based on a written estimate and a handshake.

As for specific contract issues, DrewDevil's comments in this thread are generally spot on. YMMV, though, as courts in various states have different tolerance levels for unconscionability, duress, and other things that can get you out of an otherwise enforceable contract.

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]

You should know what you're talking about before making snarky comments like "I stopped reading here."

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant I didn't read the rest of the OP before posting myself, and will then go back and do it.

[ QUOTE ]
You weren't lied to, you probably just weren't paying attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was definitely lied to. I set the curve in this class and I remember this point well.

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and you cannot really bury things in the fine print. I am a bit fuzzy on what is considered incorrigible, but if a judge finds something in the contract incorrigible I believe that is grounds for the wronged (duped) party to void the contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP - nice thread idea. The above quoted is something I've always wondered about. For example, my friend (a lawyer) is working on a pro bono case representing subprime borrowers who recently defaulted on their mortgages. The contention is that the subprime borrowers (not native English speakers, mainly Hispanic) were grossly misled concerning their mortgage payment levels, and the actual structure of the debt.

Let's assume the actual terms were "buried" within the contract but extant somehow. My gut says the borrower in this case should be accountable for reading the contract and understanding it... but I guess not?

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, people who enter contracts are imputed to have read and understood the language of the contract... but not always. There are equitable remedies available to set aside the contract (sometimes)... if the contract was "unconscionable," or if there was a severe disparity in bargaining position, etc.

To counter these possibilities, however, a lot of today's contracts have broad "I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THIS CONTRACT AND I HAVE CONSULTED WITH MY ATTORNEY" language that the parties have everyone initial, so it's much harder to contend you didn't know what you were signing.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an aside, some of the more serious contract I've seen they have you recopy in your own handwriting the entire verbiage of the contract (only about a page). That way there is no way you can later claim you didn't read or didn't understand the contract before signing it.

[miajag]

[ QUOTE ]
The most important thing to know is this:

When dealing with the police your rights don't matter. They will do whatever they want and the courts will support them.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, STFU. Let me guess, your legal expertise consists of having read the Wikipedia article on the Fourth Amendment and you start screaming about how you "KNOW YOUR RIGHTS" the instant a cop says a word to you?

The fact is, the vast majority of cops (and yes, I do admit there are exceptions) don't hassle people or act like dicks unless they're given a reason to. That "reason" is usually retarded punk kids giving them unnecessary attitude or blatantly looking and acting like criminals. Be polite, get a haircut, don't break major laws and it's pretty amazing how few problems you'll have with the cops.

[ QUOTE ]

I have a theory that this is really why the show COPS is on TV: to so inure and habituate the public to seeing police officers violate others' rights, that when they violate yours you won't complain. Seriously, I can almost guarantee you will see a cop break the law in a 30 minute episode of that show.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Care to make a prop bet on this?

[El Diablo]

Lawyers,

Here's a question. Perhaps a silly one, but one I've wondered about a lot.

I sign LOTS of signature pages. In these cases I'm generally sent a bunch of docs w/ "Sign Here" stickies on them and then I send back the signature page only. I usually actually read what I'm sent, so I know what I'm signing. But what's to keep someone from substituting the middle pages after I send it back? And at that point it just becomes my word against theirs in terms of what I actually read and signed.

I guess this can be addressed to a degree by having to initial every page. And in most of these cases, there are lots of parties involved. Anyhow, I guess what I'm asking is, in the case of less formal contracts when you have a few pages that you're doing with another individual, are there things you should be making sure to do in case there's a dispute - like at least initialing every page? Or more?

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
Be polite, get a haircut, don't break major laws and it's pretty amazing how few problems you'll have with the cops.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Being polite and getting a haircut (and being white) does more to keep you out of trouble than, say, not breaking laws.

To avoid becoming a complete troll I'm going to just say that my statement was hyperbole. No, I don't believe the courts support wanton lawlessness by police officers or that all cops are bad. I was exaggerating to make the point that knowing your rights, even insisting upon them, is not always sufficient to protect yourself from those in power trampling them anyway.

Better?

[supafrey]

[ QUOTE ]
Lawyers,

Here's a question. Perhaps a silly one, but one I've wondered about a lot.

I sign LOTS of signature pages. In these cases I'm generally sent a bunch of docs w/ "Sign Here" stickies on them and then I send back the signature page only. I usually actually read what I'm sent, so I know what I'm signing. But what's to keep someone from substituting the middle pages after I send it back? And at that point it just becomes my word against theirs in terms of what I actually read and signed.

I guess this can be addressed to a degree by having to initial every page. And in most of these cases, there are lots of parties involved. Anyhow, I guess what I'm asking is, in the case of less formal contracts when you have a few pages that you're doing with another individual, are there things you should be making sure to do in case there's a dispute - like at least initialing every page? Or more?

[/ QUOTE ]

In Canadian common law (it's all I know about) rulings in cases like this depend a bunch on your level of legal expertise and the diligence in which the other party sought to inform you of the details.

In fact, to protect people, ignorance to parts of the contract (like smaller typesetting or hidden parts) often nullifies part of the contract. Smart business types occasionally even hurridly say "OKAY OKAY OAKY OKAY", signing whatever sheets are put in front of them, knowing they now will have a future defense should they want to revoke a part of the contract.

Basically, depending on the seriousness of the contract, there's a responsibility for due diligence on both parties.... More serious contracts often make you sign several key parts and BOLD important numbers to insure nothing can be brought against them.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]


Second thing: minors can void any contract they enter into. This may affect a lot of posters. What does this mean? If you are 16, buy a lizzard at the pet store, and it dies, you can take it back and get your money back. (Note: you may have to go to court because the store clerk/manager has no clue that you can legally just void that contract. And you would have to give them their now dead lizard back.) If you buy a car and wreck it, same thing. (Though no dealership is going to sell you a car without having an adult co sign). This protection extends to a reasonable time after you turn 18, though I think that is only for contracts entered before you were 18. (So you enter a contract, turn 18, and you still have a little time to void it, though it is very fuzzy just how much).



[/ QUOTE ]

This is true only as to the contract. The seller still has equitable remedies and the minor is still responsible for paying the equitable share of what (s)he used. In the car example, if the car is totalled, the minor will have to pay the total amount of the car. If the minor drives a new car off the lot, the minor will have to pay the difference bewteen a new car and a used car.

Of course, as OP pointed out, this is usually moot because the dealer requires a person of age to sign the contract.

In practice, what would usually happen (if the minor paid up front) is that the seller would take the offset and refund only what is leftover.