What laws prohibit winning prizes in international contests? In the https://flutter.dev/create contest, the rules say this: Persons from the following countries or regions can submit but will not be considered eligible for the contest due to local rules, including exclusion from judging and prizes: Italy, Brazil, Quebec, and Mexico. What laws in these countries or regions prevent winning prizes in an international contest? Edit: there are no chance elements in the contest, but part of the judging criteria is subjective.
Quebec has more stringent sweepstakes laws than the rest of Canada: Companies don't exclude residents of Quebec from sweepstakes because they don't want to advertise in Quebec, or because they have anything against the residents of that province. The reason why so many sweepstakes are void in Quebec is that the sponsors must follow a stringent set of laws set out by Quebec's Regie des alcools, des courses et des jeux (RACJ), which governs alcohol, lotteries, contests, gambling, and more. ... For example, in order for sweepstakes with prizes worth more than a certain value to be open to residents of Quebec, the companies sponsoring the sweepstakes must take some or all of the following steps: Register the sweepstakes rules and all advertisements used to promote the contest with the Quebec government at least 30 days ahead of the sweepstakes' launch. Publish the full text of the sweepstakes' rules at least 10 days before the giveaway begins. Pay a fee of up to 10% of the sweepstakes' value, depending on who is allowed to enter. Agree to allow the government of Quebec to mediate any lawsuits arising from the contest. Follow strict guidelines about the contents of the sweepstakes rules. Allow the government of Quebec the right to approve any changes to the giveaway that need to be made once it has started, and to approve canceling the giveaway if it becomes necessary to do so. File a written report after the contest has concluded, attesting that the prizes have been delivered or attempted to be delivered. Agree to let the RACJ mediate any disagreements with the public. File security in the amount of the prize value, to ensure that the prizes are actually awarded. The full set of laws can be found in chapter L-6, r. 6 of Quebec Consolidated Statutes. Note that under Quebec law, a "publicity contest" (concours publicitaire) is a contest, a lottery scheme, a game, a plan or an operation which results in the awarding of a prize, carried on for the object of promoting the commercial interests of the person for whom it is carried on. So even though chance plays a minimal role in the contest you've described, it's still regulated by the stringent requirements of Quebec law. In contrast, in the rest of Canada, promotional contests are governed by Section 74.06 of the (federal) Competition Act. A set of enforcement guidelines can be found on the Competition Bureau's website; they basically require anyone running a contest to: give "adequate and fair disclosure... of the number and approximate value of the prizes, of the area or areas to which they relate and of any fact within the knowledge of the person that affects materially the chances of winning;" not "unduly delay" the distribution of the prizes, and select winners on the basis of skill or on the basis of random chance. [I think this basically bars giving the prize to the boss's nephew.] However, there is nothing about fees, securities, publishing the rules in advance, submitting one's advertising materials to the government, etc. Given the relative ease of running a contest in the rest of Canada compared to Quebec, one can easily see how a company might not find it worthwhile to allow Quebecers to enter and win.
Federal countries usually define the separation (and sometimes sharing) of legislative competencies in their constitutions. There will also usually be a "default" case for if the competency is not explicitly defined in the constitution. For example, in the United States, the default is to give legislative power to the individual states via the Tenth Amendment. If criminal law is left to the sub-national entities, then the nation can usually still enact a penal code with respect to its competencies (again, the U.S. is a good example). So, I decided to make this a mini-research project by checking the countries Wikipedia lists as federations. I wasn't able to find an explicit statement as to whether there were competing penal codes in most cases, but was able to find in which level of government the constitution placed criminal law. In some cases where there are "competing" penal codes, the constitution specified which level has supremacy, making for less "competition". Without further ado, here's what I've been able to find. Links are either to an appropriate Wikipedia page, or the part of the applicable constitution dividing the legislative competencies. Take these with a grain of salt. Competing penal codes Australia Bosnia and Herzegovina Ethiopia India Iraq Mexico Nigeria Pakistan Sudan United States Single national penal code Austria Brazil Canada Comoros Germany Malaysia Nepal Russia Switzerland Venezuela Unclear Argentina Belgium Micronesia St. Kitts and Nevis Somalia South Sudan United Arab Emirates
The general answer is, no, it is not valid in the US, see this article. Exceptions to laws recognizing e-signatures abound which exclude wills from general laws recognizing electronic signatures. Nevada is the one current exception (conveniently located between Oregon and Arizona). There have been attempts to legalize electronic wills, including in Arizona (SB 1298). Although Tennessee does not recognize e-wills, a gentleman in Tennessee went ahead and did it, and in Taylor v. Holt, 134 S.W.3d 830 the court decided that the will was properly executed and witnessed. Electronic notarization is recognized in Arizona, though apparently for things you file with the government (not things that your heirs will eventually file), whereas in Oregon it is a general-purpose way of getting a document notarized. Since the courts are loathe to completely disregard a person's last will and testament because they didn't narrowly follow requirements, you might be able to "get away with it", but it would not make things easier for the executor.
&quot;Any perceived compliance or non-compliance of other developers’ apps does not have any bearing on the compliance of your own apps.&quot; Could this mean that Google Play's policies are applied differently for different developers or apps? No, it means that you can't break the rules even if others are breaking the rules or you think they are breaking the rules. I think it is worth noting that those apps are for the Indian market. I don't know which one you are in, but google will have different rules for different countries to comply with various regulatory requirements.
The expression &quot;Russian person&quot; appears in Article 11 of the original, which says No claims in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which has been affected, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the measures imposed under this Regulation, including claims for indemnity or any other claim of this type, such as a claim for compensation or a claim under a guarantee, notably a claim for extension or payment of a bond, guarantee or indemnity, particularly a financial guarantee or financial indemnity, of whatever form, shall be satisfied, if they are made by: (a) entities referred to in points (b) or (c) of Article 5, or listed in Annex III; (b) any other Russian person, entity or body; (c) any person, entity or body acting through or on behalf of one of the persons, entities or bodies referred to in points (a) or (b) of this paragraph The &quot;Whereas&quot; clause first introduces the word &quot;person&quot; saying Those measures comprise the freezing of funds and economic resources of certain natural and legal persons, entities and bodies and restrictions on certain investments, as a response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol Article 2 then gives various prohibitions, which are broader that the March prohibitions against certain transactions &quot;to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Russia or for use in Russia&quot;. Since the regulation applies to things that are not human and cannot be citizens, it does not mean &quot;citizen&quot;. It does include &quot;a human&quot;, as well as artificial persons such as corporations, or government bodies. A Russian citizen who lives and works entirely in e.g. Germany is not in the prohibited set if they are not shipping prohibited goods to Russia. The Syrian Commander-in-Chief of the PLA (who is not a resident of Russia) is, however, prohibited from obtaining &quot;dual use goods&quot; to be taken to and used in Russia. Article 11 is different in wording from other articles stating various prohibitions, which repeat that long expression with &quot;in Russia or for use in Russia&quot;. Art. 11 says that under certain circumstances, contract claims shall not be satisfied if the claims are made by (a) entities referred to in points (b) or (c) of Article 5, or listed in Annex III; (b) any other Russian person, entity or body; Apart from the explicit list in Annex III, (b-c) or Art. 5 is (b) a legal person, entity or body established outside the Union whose proprietary rights are owned for more than 50 %by an entity listed in Annex III; or (c) a legal person, entity or body acting on behalf or at the direction of an entity referred to in point (b) of this paragraph or listed in Annex III. Therefore, the expression &quot;any other Russian person, entity or body&quot; refers to something much more expansive. On the face of it, it has to mean that no &quot;Russian person&quot; in any sense can sue for non-performance arising from this regulation.
Would the American client refuse to have to potentially deal with non-American courts, in the possibility of a conflict? Some might, but probably not all. Most wouldn't bother to read it; others who do won't understand what the jurisdiction provision means. Should the contractor pick just one court (English OR Welsh)? No. England and Wales is a unified legal jurisdiction. The two countries share a single court system. Could the contract stipulates that is enforceable under exclusive jurisdiction of American, English and Welsh courts, but that the Welsh one takes precedence? If US courts have jurisdiction and English-and-Welsh courts have jurisdiction, then there is no exclusive jurisdiction.
An Estonian company can be sued under French law for violating French law in France, and so can its officers, no matter what their nationality or where they reside. So yes, you could be sued in France as an officer of the company. If you have assets in France, a French judgment against you will be easier to enforce than one against someone who has no assets in France. This is, similarly, not about nationality but about the location of your assets. A suit could also be pursued in Estonia. If the activities in Estonia are contrary to Estonian law then you could also be sued in Estonia as an officer of the company. We frequently have questions about &quot;which law applies&quot; for cases that span multiple jurisdictions. The general answer is that all law applies. An activity in multiple jurisdictions must comply with the law in every one of them. If you are doing something that is prohibited (or even that possibly might be prohibited) in either Estonian law or French law, you should take professional legal advice. Unless you can find a lawyer who is qualified in both countries, you will need two lawyers.
I can't answer for the Indonesian law specifically. But in general, under most international copyright schemes, a translation is considered a copyrightable work. This means that even if the original work (in this case, the Quran and Hadith) is in the public domain, derivative works based on that public domain work can still be copyrighted by their creators. This includes, for example: A song with lyrics taken from the Quran A play or movie dramatizing stories from the Quran A novel retelling a story from the Quran In all of these cases, the author has built something new, based on the public domain framework. Because they contributed something original, they are entitled to a copyright on their original contribution. They can't stop someone from copying the Quran themselves, but they can stop someone from copying their original work based on the Quran. Most copyright courts--again, I don't know about Indonesia specifically--will treat a translation the same way. A translation is an original work that requires creativity and skill--otherwise Google Translate would work a lot better than it does. Just like a movie based on the Quran, a translation based on the Quran will probably be copyrightable under most, if not all, countries' copyright laws.