how does implied warrenty claims relate to the song-beverly consumers act?
474935
The Song-Beverly Consumer Act gives the purchaser an implied warranty of merchantability an implied warranty of fitness on goods, provided that the goods are not excluded from these warranties. One example of excluded gods are goods that are sold "as is", providing that they bear the required written disclaimer.\n\nMore specific cases of what's included, excluded, or can be covered by an additional service contract or warranty are in the text of the bill, which is available through the source link.
1114868
Each situation is different, of course, but here's what could happen\n\nRE: Trademarks\n\nPlaintiff may be entitled to recover defendant's profits, any damages & the costs of being infringed upon (i.e. lost profits, compensation, etc.)\n\nRE: Copyrights\n\nInjunctions, impounding, damages & profits, costs & attorney's fees, etc.\n\nHope that helps!
967493
The display of a disclaimer notice of this kind in respect of injury, damage or loss to any person or property whilst on the premises or making use of the premises, may not have the effect of avoiding liability. This is because under sections 2(1) and 2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977:\n\n"2(1) A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.\n\n2(2) In the case of other loss or damage, a person cannot so exclude or restrict his liability for negligence except in so far as the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness."
22419
http://www.consumeraction.gov/bbb.shtml
13767
What's your concern?\nHow do you imagine an answer, right or wrong or misleading, causing harm? What scenes do you envision?\n\nMorally (but not necessarily legally), I would think that the liability resolves to the person who accepts the answer without cross-checking it with other, more authoratative sources. \n\nSome sayings that may apply:\n"Trust everyone, but always cut the cards."\n"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."\n"Caveat Emptor" (let the buyer beware)\n'There are no guaranteed outcomes. As Neale Donald Walsh said in Conversations With God."if you want guarantees, you don't want Life."' (1)
1075815
Small claims court is designed to be somewhat informal but there still must be a legitimate legal basis for any claim that is made.\n\nThe cell phone issues seems quite reasonable and if you can demonstrate she has routinely been paying 1/3 of the charges a court will very likely accept that as adequate proof of the agreement.\n\nThe loss of wages issue is a different matter. There is no legal basis for holding a party liable for the loss of wages that are incurred by the plaintiff while prosecuting a lawsuit.\n\nA small suggestion is that you tone down your rhetoric in the complaint and while in court. Using words like "malicious" is questionable and won't win you any points with a judge.
1169301
I can find no law by that name, but the idea you are talking about seems to be enshrined in case law:\n\nThose beneficiaries represented by appellant whose interests or whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained come clearly within this category. As to them the statutory notice is sufficient. However great the odds that publication will never reach the eyes of such unknown parties, it is not in the typical case much more likely to fail than any of the choices open to legislators endeavoring to prescribe the best notice practicable. \n\nNor do we consider it unreasonable for the State to dispense with more certain notice to those beneficiaries whose interests are either conjectural or future or, although they could be discovered upon investigation, do not in due course of business come to knowledge of the common trustee. Whatever searches might be required in another situation under ordinary standards of diligence, in view of the character of the proceedings and the nature of the interests here involved we think them unnecessary. We recognize the practical difficulties and costs that would be attendant on frequent investigations into the status of great numbers of beneficiaries, many of whose interests in the common fund are so remote as to be ephemeral; and we have no doubt that such impracticable and extended searches are not required in the [339 U.S. 306, 318]   name of due process. The expense of keeping informed from day to day of substitutions among even current income beneficiaries and presumptive remaindermen, to say nothing of the far greater number of contingent beneficiaries, would impose a severe burden on the plan, and would likely dissipate its advantages. These are practical matters in which we should be reluctant to disturb the judgment of the state authorities. \n\nAccordingly we overrule appellant's constitutional objections to published notice insofar as they are urged on behalf of any beneficiaries whose interests or addresses are unknown to the trustee.
880664
If you went to the showroom/store then you have no legal recourse if you have simply changed your mind.  The Sale of Goods Act does not have any contingency for customers who change their minds, it would only apply if there was a fault which was not pointed out at the time of sale.  If you were missold the product, you could have recourse through The Misrepresentation Act, but you would have to prove that you were misled.  Many retailers' terms and conditions allow a return period for goods, however, with cars it is unusual, because you have used the car.  The dealer may allow you to change your car for a different one as a gesture of goodwill, but you would not be able to cancel.\n\nIn terms of the credit agreement, you do have a right to cancel the agreement within a specific time frame, typically fourteen days, the exact one will be on your copy of the agreement, but the purchase of the credit agreement is separate from the purchase of the car, so you would still owe the retailer the money for the car even though you cancelled the credit.
1143889
One place to look:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
639349
Guarantee: To accept responsibility for an obligation if the entity with primary responsibility for the obligation does not meet it. \n\nWarranty: An agreement between a buyer and a seller of goods or services, detailing the conditions under which the seller will make repairs or fix problems without cost to the buyer.
179855
wrong.they are very different.  a warranty is an assurance that something bad won't happen.  a company warranties that a car won't break down.  a guarantee is an assurance that something good will happen. a company would guarantee that you would lose 10 lbs if you use their product for a month or that you will be pleased with its performance.
1030703
On the federal level, titles 17 and 18 of the U.S. Code protect copyright owners from the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation or distribution of sound recordings, as well as certain digital performances to the public. The penalties differ slightly, depending upon whether the infringing activity is for commercial advantage or private financial gain. Under U.S. copyright law, "financial gain" includes bartering or trading anything of value, including sound recordings.\n\nWhere the infringing activity is for commercial advantage or private financial gain, sound recording infringements can be punishable by up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Violators can also be held civilly liable for actual damages, lost profits, or statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringement, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.\n\nThe online infringement of copyrighted music can be punished by up to 3 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned up to 6 years. Individuals also may be held civilly liable, regardless of whether the activity is for profit, for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed copyright. \n\nWanna avoid getting caught?  Don't do it.  It's fortunate that RIAA understands that the desire for high quality electronic music is not going to go away so they support the endeavors of online music distributors (well, sorta support it..you know the RIAA, always trying to negotiate for more money) like iTunes, Napster and Rhapsody.
960742
It sounds to me like the buyers' lawyer is trying to shake you down.  Depending on the state you're in, the closing ends all debate unless an issue is agreed in writing, there is a violation of a statutory warranty, or misrepresentation can be proven.  Since there are other factors that may be in play here, I can't give you an air tight solution, but my first impression is that you are not liable ($6000 to fix flashing?), and you are not liable - with some exceptions - for other repairs, as a matter of law.  You should take the problem to the lawyer that handled your closing, for advice.  Like it or not, you may need legal representation, and your original lawyer is the logical one to contact.  Hope this helps.
692530
In the UK (maybe the same in other countries?) the company who plays the music has to have a public entertainment license, so it does not violate the copyright laws, as a percentage of the licence fee goes to royalties for songwriters/artists etc.
10795
As usual with legal-related questions on Yahoo! Answers, too little information exists to answer this question adequately.  The state you're in would be helpful.  Not posting the same question five times would be helpful.  Nevertheless, I'll answer what I can in this question, and post another question if you need more details.\n\nAt this date and time, it's getting a little too late to deal with the problems adequately.  A notarized note will not be very helpful - after all, the dispute is not about whether the house exists in that condition, but whether you or the landlord should be responsible for the cost of those conditions.\n\nTaking photographs and video is helpful, but again it only shows that damage exists, not who is responsible for it.  The video, though, may be able to show that it wasn't from your abuse of the apartment, but from natural wear and tear that the landlord refused to repair.\n\nDo you have any record of communication with the landlord?  That's the strongest piece of evidence you'll have.  You'd be able to show that you notified the landlord, or that the landlord acknowledged receipt of that request.\n\nIt's a little too late now, but you should have sent certified mailings to the landlord.  The landlord would have had to sign a card acknowledging that he received your letter, and you would have proof that he received your request.  With just 10 days to go, it's too late for that.\n\nI would carefully catalog everything that has happened, with each date you noticed the problem if possible, if the cause was natural, when you notified the landlord, and the entire history of the dispute.  Photos and video are helpful if you go to court.  A notarized statement is not very helpful.  Records of communication with your landlord are extremely helpful.  Otherwise, if you don't get the security deposit, you may simply have to go to small claims court with the recordings and hope that the judge believes your story.
236560
The Companies do not always want the products liability.  I just insured a pharmacuetical maker, and had to write the products liability on a separate non-admitted carrier paper policy (kinda like Lloyds)\n\nAsk around.  And the person that answered that was a homeonwer specialist is correct.  Your current carrier could deny coverage, check into it.
524308
I think they are asking you to volunteer to have your pc bugged so if you do it, even on accident, they can arrest you.\n\nDid you know that if a copyright holder believes you have violated his right, he can enter your home without a warrant to protect that right?  The record companies had done it, but cooled off for public outrage.  It's the only industry out to sue its own customers.\n\nvisit janisian.com, a well known recording artist, and see what she has to say about it.