I find it amazing that folks think you go to small claims court, the guy pays and that is it. In reality he does not show up, the judge sees in your favor then you deliver that court order to him, or pay the sheriff's department to deliver it, if know where he is. He ignors it. You find out where his bank account is, or his job. You go back to court and they sign a garish, in the mean time he moved his account, and got another job. They don't show all this on the TV Court shows, do they?
Oh yes, if you keep following through, you will eventually get your money. After about 3 years.
--
Gonz wrote:
Thats what small claims court is for. If you have a clear case, its easy to win, even without a lawyer, plus the landlord... if he hired a lawyer, would be out probably 3x the $1K, so he would probably settle for the whole amount rather than risk it. A moving company once broke alot of my stuff and would not pay the damages. When I threatened to sue, they said "go ahead" it was not until the day before the court date that they called me and offered to settle. After what they put me through, I asked for 2x damages and they coughed it up. Thats their tactic every time, and they usually wear the other party down.
rg
graywolf wrote:
Only when there is big money involved. I remember when I was trying to recover deposits from a previous landlord, I could not find a lawyer interesting in trying to get my piddling $1000, even when I offered the whole amount as a fee (rather give it to a lawyer than let the landlord beat me out of it). I even had papers signed by the manager saying that the apartment was in better shape when I moved out than it was when I moved in. Now if you are talking $20K or so, you would have to beat them off with a stick.
--
Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Phew! Thanks Frank! I was a bit worried about that - in Australia it is
generally thought that those in the US are extremely litigious (sic?), and
that it pays to be veeeeery careful...
tan.
-----Original Message----- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 28 March 2004 2:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: something weird...
BTW, Tan,
A final note. I don't think you "majorly broke the law" by reproducing that
e-mail in it's entirety.
That weaselly disclaimer statement is just their way of trying to say, "You
know what, we screwed up royally by sending an e-mail, in error, to someone
to whom we didn't intend to send it. If, due to our error, that receipient
does something with it to screw up our company, we want to try to sue him,
even though ~we~ screwed up."
Now, if there's one thing you have to know about the law, it's that having a
law means nothing. Enforcing it means everything.
No one's going to come after you for reproducing the e-mail. All you did,
after all, was send it to the very same group to which they sent it in
error! Remember, we all got the same "out of office" reply. And, even if
we didn't all get it, there's nothing damaging to Max' company in that
e-mail, so they've suffered no damages, so why would they want to try to
enforce their alleged copyright? There's nothing to enforce, without
damages.
So, again, relax. Have a nice cuppa tea (I'd say beer, but I know you don't
drink). Go take more lovely photographs. And, have a nice day.
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snip>
Secondly, I just realised that I majorly broke the law by posting that email in its entirety with the disclaimer attached, I'll probably get into "trouble" for that too. <snip>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt
p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
