How strict should I be with &quot;to the best of my knowledge&quot;? The Question: In many legal documents, there is a section for you to sign where you declare that the document is correct to the best of your knowledge. If something small or relatively unimportant is incorrect in the document, would you sign it? Some Context: I'm completing a loan application where both I and my wife are joint applicants. Included in the document is a table showing our current debts, which is mostly our mortgage. The table also has a mark on each row indicating if the debt belongs to the primary applicant (me) or the "other" applicant (my wife) and then a "total", which is the sum of all the debts. For some reason, the table lists the mortgage for me, and then again for my wife, so the total is about 2x what it should be (a large sum). I informed the loan officer that this was incorrect and did not reflect the actual debt that we carry. They indicated that they cannot change it because the table is auto-populated using data pulled from our credit report and the mortgage is listed twice because both of our names are on the mortgage. Instead they countered that many people sign this and that it isn't all that important because I'm just disclosing my debt. So I offered to not sign that portion since it was so unimportant. They obviously would not allow that. I understand that the purpose of this section was to say "hey, here's all my debts, I'm not stretching myself too thin." So if my reported debt is high and the bank is willing to give me a loan anyway, then this section of the document shouldn't matter to me. However, I don't feel comfortable signing a legal document saying "this is all correct" when I know it isn't correct. Am I being unrealistic?
If something small or relatively unimportant is incorrect in the document, would you sign it? if my reported debt is high and the bank is willing to give me a loan anyway, then this section of the document shouldn't matter to me. I would not consider it unimportant. The item at issue relates to debts you have (or admit), and it is part of a document whereby you seek to incur further debt. The fact that an inaccuracy of that sort seems immaterial to you does not guarantee that it will be inconsequential. For instance, the inaccurate duplication might be pigeonholing you as a high-risk exposure, allowing the bank to impose on you harsher restrictions now or in the future (especially in the event that you fall behind on the payments). Moreover, knowingly consenting to that inaccuracy could complicate your requests to correct errors (if any) in subsequent credit reports. The rating agency could refute your request by saying "This loan document with your signature on it reflects that you owe this high amount", and the loan officer will not be there to help you. There could be additional ramifications, but these are two I can think of right now. The loan officer's pretext that the inaccuracy stems from auto-populated fields means nothing if that explanation is not clearly stated by the bank in the document you are signing. The document constitutes (or is an important part of) an explicit contract between you and the bank. Others' carelessness about contracts they sign won't help you if things turn ugly later on.
There is, in general, a rule that all matters connected with a single transaction or event should be included in a single legal case. Different jurisdictions apply this diffidently, and I haven't yet researched this in Maryland specifically. Also, if you agree to pay a part of what the landlord claims, you will quite likely be asked to sign a settlement agreement as part of the transaction. This is likely to include a release of all claims connected with your tenancy at the apartment. If it does, and you sign the agreement, you will be giving up any claim you might otherwise have because of the failure to properly notify you. You may want to consult a lawyer about this. A one-time consultation might not be very expensive. If you sued the landlord, you could do so in small claims court, where legal costs are significantly lower than in other courts.
This is very common in all sorts of legal documents, not just the United States Code. Another familiar example where this is seen is on checks. It serves as a sort of &quot;redundancy check&quot;, to help catch errors where either the words or the numerals could have been incorrectly transcribed. Of course, one could ask why similar redundancy isn't used to avoid errors in other contexts; there doesn't seem to be a good answer for this besides &quot;tradition&quot;. Some people feel the practice is obsolete and should be abandoned, e.g. https://www.butlersnow.com/2020/04/five-5-reasons-to-stop-writing-numbers-like-this/.
The contract is enforceable No one is in any doubt that the parties to the contract are you and Smith Homes and everyone knows that Smith Homes means Smith Homes LLC. The written document is only evidence of the contract, the contract is the entire commercial relationship. Contracts are not invalid because they have typos or minor irregularities- otherwise virtually no written one would be. The law can be very pragmatic sometimes.
Law does not have an all-encompassing syntax and structure that, if not followed, makes it null and void. If a reasonable person could determine that (in the example of the sign you have) you are required to get written permission from any or all of the Paulding County Commissioners, then the sign is enforceable. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the sign you are displaying, it is reasonably clear. If, for example the notice contains an ambiguity or unclear phrase, the &quot;spirit&quot; of the law or sign is upheld. If the sign had said something to the effect of &quot;No trespassing without permission&quot;. It doesn't say who you need permission from, but you can reasonably ascertain that you must have permission from somebody in control of the land. There is no line in the sand here. Often when a dispute in a contract comes up where it could be interpreted more than one way, it is often interpreted in favor of the person who did not write the contract. &quot;Offer ends October 30 or while supplies last&quot; Isn't really &quot;ill-phrased&quot; either. I assure you that those statements are vetted by highly paid lawyers from many jurisdictions. I'm not sure what &quot;nonsense&quot; you would be referring to in there. If the vendor runs out of promotional materials the promotion ends... If they had said &quot;free hats to the first 100 customers on December 31st&quot;, you can't show up as the 101st customer and demand a hat, nor could you show up on January 1st (even if there were not 100 customers the previous day) and demand one either.
Although your "title" may not of itself have legal force, that doesn't necessarily mean you can do as you please in every situation without fear of liability. For example, if you falsely claim to be a medical doctor or lawyer, you could find yourself liable for civil damages to defrauded clients; you may also violate criminal laws. (An anonymous bureaucratic form probably won't create that problem, because as another answerer pointed out nobody really cares or pays attention to titles most of the time. But stranger things have happened; and by "form" you could mean "tax form" or some declaration made under penalty of perjury. Lawyers generally avoid blanket "that's fine" answers, because there are almost always many ways that it might not be fine.)
Yes. This is legal. The only possible liability for a truthful and accurate disclosure of fact is a defamation action (in the absence of a privacy clause in the contract) and this is truthful so it would not violate anyone's legal rights. Credit reporting agencies routinely collect such information and court actions to collect unpaid debts are also a matter of public record. Credit reporting agencies in this business also have some additional obligations (such as the obligation to remove an entry after a period of time and an obligation to present rebuttal statements from the person affected). But, you should understand that merely publicly sharing truthful information about a factual matter is not really what a "blacklist" means. Normally, a blacklist includes an implied understanding that certain actions will be taken as a result of placement on the list rather than merely sharing information for what it is worth. An example of a law prohibiting a true blacklist from Colorado is the following: § 8-2-110. Unlawful to publish blacklist No corporation, company, or individual shall blacklist, or publish, or cause to be blacklisted or published any employee, mechanic, or laborer discharged by such corporation, company, or individual, with the intent and for the purpose of preventing such employee, mechanic, or laborer from engaging in or securing similar or other employment from any other corporation, company, or individual. Incidentally, I'm not convinced that the statute would be constitutional if enforced under modern First Amendment jurisprudence, although one U.S. District court case from 1971 did uphold its validity in the face of a somewhat different kind of challenge. Resident Participation, Inc. v. Love, 322 F. Supp. 1100 (D. Colo. 1971).
In the US, code that you write in the course of employment is the property of your employer. Otherwise, anything that you create is your property. The gray area is things that you write during your employment but not in the course of your employment (hence the terms of the employment contract are vital). Something that you write before becoming an employee is not &quot;in the course of employment&quot;. However, if you use that code in the in the course of employment, you invite the argument that in fact the code was written in the course of employment. That argument can be squelched if you have an agreement with the employer that acknowledges that you are licensing your code to the employer in exchange for ... some consideration. It could be $1, or a similar unit of currency.