36

You cannot pass on better title than you have The fraudster (B) in this scenario does not have good title in the car and so the thief (C) doesn't either: 1) because they are a thief and 2) because the person they stole it from didn't own it. If C had paid B for the car then C would still not own it because while they are no longer a thief, B still doesn't ...


23

The only avenue for tenant liability would be if the tenant is responsible for the damage. The courts have not assigned responsibility for damage resulting from other people's disagreement with a political expression to the person expressing the viewpoint. You are generally free to peacefully express yourself, and as a renter this would be part of your right ...


21

You can start here, with the attractive nuisance doctrine, which is aimed at children and the fact that they don't have adult common sense. The extent to which you are at risk depends on your jurisdiction. However, a fence does not necessarily protect you, because children can find a way to get around a fence, instead you need to eliminate the risk (so you ...


15

You will not be legally liable. You are not responsible for other people's irrational or even violent reactions to your protected speech. If you could be held liable for other people's irrational or violent reactions to your peaceful speech, then exactly what your landlord is trying to do here could happen. People could threaten violence or harm as a way to ...


13

Everything may theoretically vary by jurisdiction, which you haven't specified. Stolen property remains the property of the lawful owner. Assuming that Person A can demonstrate their lawful ownership, person A gets the car back. If the car has been damaged or destroyed, person A may sue persons B and (possibly) C for restitution to cover the loss. In ...


12

There's a material question here, but you worsen your situation only slightly by acknowledging receipt of the communication, and you worsen it greatly by stating in writing that you agree with the communication. (I don't know what you mean by "accept"). You're responsible only to the extent that you incite violence. This requires you be attuned to what ...


10

Yes, you can. An excellent example is this very website - at the bottom of this page you will find a series of links in the footer, one of which is "Terms of Service". I think you will agree that most people using the Law SE are making no money from it or paying no money to use it and yet the terms of service sets out in black and white what a user ...


7

In the United States, a website that is labeled as parody and that a reasonable reader would, upon reflection, recognize as not stating true facts is protected under the First Amendment, so no liability will attach. The key case on this point is Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). At the time, Campari Liqueur was running an ad campaign in which ...


7

Maritime law has a lot of weird rules, but the normal rule of statutory construction is that scienter requirements -- intent, knowledge, recklessness, etc. -- apply to everything that comes after them, until a new scienter requirement is stated. That would leave you with a statute looking like this: A person liable shall not be entitled to limit his ...


5

Of course it is protected by the first amendment. Everyone in the US is protected by the first amendment. It's possible that some statements published on the site might fall afoul of any of the well established exceptions to first amendment protection, but in general the site is protected.


5

YES There are many services that are offered for free but bound to specific terms. For example Twitter tells you to obey the acceptable use guidelines and the stack has rules on what conduct is allowed. The ToS are the main thing how they ensure that the user has been informed of what they can do, and what you can do. They are a simple contract of adherence: ...


4

"Recklessly", which is an adverb, must modify a verb. It can only be sensibly construed as modifying "committed" – the action is committed recklessly. The clause "with the intent to cause such loss" is what is technically known as a "sister" of the clause "recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would ...


4

No. Twitter is traditionally a platform, not a distributor or a publisher. Blocking linking is not editorializing like in a publisher. They don't act as an editor in mounting warnings or deleting posts, they enforce their rights under the Communications Decency Act, Section 230 (emphasis mine): No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be ...


4

The facts of the flower pot would determine the outcome. The legal question is whether the owner was "negligent". A claim of ignorance is insufficient, what matters is whether the owner departed from what an ordinary reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances. You can write dozens of scenarios that yield different conclusions. For ...


4

At common law and in the majority rule in U.S. law, the obligation one owes to a trespasser or thief is to refrain from setting deadly traps. In this case, where the product is not inherently dangerous, it probably wouldn't count as a deadly trap, but best practices would be to post a conspicuous sign along the lines of "warning: consumption of these ...


3

Bankruptcy does not obliterate legal financial obligations (taxes that you owe, fines, etc.). Fines either do or do not (any more) accrue interest, depending on jurisdiction. Fines for criminal conviction can accrue interest. By law, no fine can be unreasonable, but there is no simple determination of what is reasonable versus unreasonable. The matter ...


3

2010 Arkansas Code Title 5 - Criminal Offenses Subtitle 6 - Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, Or Welfare Chapter 73 - Weapons Subchapter 1 - Possession and Use Generally § 5-73-126 - Booby traps. 5-73-126. Booby traps. (a) It is unlawful for any person to install or maintain a booby trap upon his or her own property ...


3

No. A governor could not be held liable in a lawsuit on those grounds. Governors in every U.S. state have governmental immunity from liability in tort (and a lawsuit for wrongful death is a kind of tort lawsuit) for their official actions, and there is no U.S. state in which this kind of lawsuit would fall within an exception to that governmental immunity. ...


3

Basically, it is up to the court. The relevant law is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). You don't give much in the way of specifics, but it sounds like you confessed something to the police at the side of the road immediately after the accident, and now wish to dispute that confession. If you are taken to court and the police want to introduce ...


3

I'm wondering whos responsible for this code if people start using it? The user. Can the people using it that think its under GPL in any way get in trouble for it or be made to remove it from their projects? Yes, they can be sued (successfully) for copyright violation. It’s not enough that you think you have permission from the copyright holder - you ...


3

Is the debt secured? Lenders can lend money secured or unsecured. If they lend it secured then what is the security? That is, what property secured the loan? For your example that could be a mortgage over the land or a charge over the assets of the LLC or both. In this particular example, it doesn’t make a difference but if the sale of the property only ...


3

Yes, independent contractors are liable for their acts and omissions The contract between the contractor and the principal should set out what the contractor is expected to do and the standard to which they are expected to do it. If the contract does not set this out then they will be required to perform to the standard of a reasonable person doing that sort ...


3

Caveats Obviously, I can't know the law of every jurisdiction and based my answer below on U.S. law. I have seen cases over the last few years on all of these points, but don't have all of the relevant references immediately at hand and I am instead working from memory. It is also a new and rapidly developing area of the law. People are always coming up with ...


3

I'll take Washington state law to be typical. RCW 9a.56.060 is the criminal law governing rubber checks. Writing a check which you know at the time of drawing or delivering a check that has insufficient fund with intent to defraud is a crime. That's not the case here. It might appear to be theft on the part of the landlord, except that In any prosecution ...


3

Unbeknownst to me, the landlord enters my apartment while I'm away, sees the check, assumes he should take it, attempts to cash it Depends on whether the landlord was trespassing (which would be the case unless the reason he entered the apartment was an emergency, or your lease agreement grants him the right to enter it without notice as he pleases). If he ...


3

As an academic matter, the US system has struggled with this, and law professors spend their lives debating it. As a realistic matter, I'd bet that company in your example gets nailed. On the theory, the issue here is but-for cause. Civil liability requires that the jury find it more likely than not, or over 50% likely, that but-for D's actions, P's injuries ...


3

All oif those except perhaps the feedback seem to be "transactional" content to which the CAN SPAM requirements do not apply. The feedback request looks to me as if it first the 'other" class in the linked FAQ, and so also would not trigger the requirements.


2

While the other two sort out their disagreement, here's one way the broadcast of misinformation is regulated which is not subject to dispute. There is a federal agency called the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC regulates interstate and international communications over TV, radio, satellite, cable, etc., throughout the US and its ...


2

People have covered the harm-to-people booby trapping at length, and that one's pretty straightforward anyway. I'm going to focus on another area: Destruction of documents I worked for a Big-Data firm when the Sarbanes-Oxley Act landed. So I setup booby-traps that are designed to either: A. Destroy any evidence I think they might look for, What they're ...


2

Insurance and diligence While a well-written Terms of Service can mitigate your exposure, you cannot totally eliminate it because: There are legal obligations that cannot be excluded by contract. For example, if your supply is covered by Australian Consumer Law (provided in Australia at a price less than AUD40,000 - free is less than AUD40,000) then you ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible