How to mention a possibility of litigation/prosecution without accidentally making a &quot;demand with menaces&quot;, in English criminal law? In English Law, extortion and blackmail are described under section 21 Theft Act 1968, as an "unwarranted demand with menaces", There's criteria and definitions, but they don't seem to matter much here. For this question the main definitions are from case law, which are broad: with roughly means backed up by and menaces roughly covers any threat to take/avoid some course of action which might coerce an unwilling person. It is the use of a "menace" which creates the crime, not the nature or validity of the demand. Even if the threatened action is valid by itself, the element of backing up or enforcing the demand with a threat to do some action, so that an unwilling person will feel coerced to comply, creates an offence under this section. According to Wikipedia, "menaces" have included, or could potentially include, backing up a demand by stating one will otherwise: reveal a failure to honour a debt, a criminal record, or other adverse fact place a person/company on a blacklist testify or not testify in some matter prosecute/report a crime or refrain from doing so Suppose a person is in a dispute. Taking and avoiding action are both legally permitted. But as a result of this section, it's hard to see what ways remain, in English law, to state the possibility of legal action (or its avoidance), that will avoid risk of prosecution oneself under s.21? To make this more concrete, here are some plausible examples from any fictional dispute, where the police decline to get involved. The injured party may wish to say something like: Repay me/put right tort, or civil litigation: "If you don't return what you took, or compensate me, you will be sued for damages" Repay me/put right crime, or criminal prosecution "If you don't return what you took, or compensate me, you will be prosecuted for theft" Put right statute-barred loss, or my only available route to recompense, which I don't want to be forced to take, is via proceeds of crime/criminal compensation "The 6 year period for damages has expired, we have two choices, either you reimburse me, or my only other way to get repaid for your crime is to prosecute you and apply for confiscation of proceeds of crime, and/or other criminal compensation." Please put this right privately, as other handling would involve courts and be harmful to your future as a student, which neither of us want "I don't want to see a promising student in jail, but unless you repay me I have no choice but to see you prosecuted" Please mediate/settle, so civil case which neither of us will like, can be dropped "I will continue my claim unless you repay what your graffiti cost to deal with" (and is this legally any different from "I will drop my claim if you repay"?) Please suggest settlement otherwise civil and criminal proceedings "I enclose a draft civil case and a draft criminal laying of information. I will file both within 14 days unless I receive a realistic settlement proposal." Job negotiation "Accept this pay cut or you won't have any income at all, because you'll be given notice" In each of these, a reasonable offer/statement of one party's perspective is being stated, with the aim of avoiding legal entanglement. It's quite a significant and real concern, because the Courts positively approve of attempts to settle before claim or before hearing, a dialogue that implicitly says "Agree to pay me this amount that I'd consider acceptable, now, or else or you will be sued / I will continue the case and you will face more costs". It's more serious if the action causing loss or damage was also criminal in nature, and the victim mainly wishes to settle the loss/damage, but has the tempting parallel option of criminal prosecution for the wrong they feel, and needs to avoid the appearance of holding a criminal case over someone's head as a menace. The only other option is to commence civil/criminal proceedings in any of these cases, with no prior discussion/warning, to avoid the possibility, but that may not be what they really wish for. My question: Given the breadth of this section, what form of words can the people thinking of statements like those above, use, to ensure they will not be held to have made a "demand" with a "menace"? Note: Assume any CPS/prosecution-related/procedural issues can be ignored - we don't have to worry if any claim or criminal prosecution would be private or public, accepted or not, or capable/incapable of being withdrawn. The mere possibility of a legal consequence might be enough in English law to create a menace and create the issue in the question.
It is the use of a "menace" which creates the crime, not the nature or validity of the demand. That's not correct. You've inadvertently missed the other element of the offence: that it's an "unwarranted demand". A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief— (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21 For example, I may have reasonable grounds under the Consumer Rights Act to demand a refund for a faulty good. It might be sensible to moderate one's language, e.g. "If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. This may increase your liability for costs." vs. "If I do not receive the money from you within 30 days of the date of this letter I'll take you to the f***ing cleaners, sunshine." But the language doesn't make the demand unwarranted.
Yes Quite a large chunk of the legal system deals with those general concepts. 27 - pretty much all contract law deals with when and how you must discharge your obligations 28 - ditto, although if it’s not owed until tomorrow … 29 - there are laws against criminal conspiracy 30 - making false accusations can be a crime and can give rise to defamation
Forbearance from action can be consideration, but it must be forbearance from something that is one's legal right. It is sufficient that a person has restricted their lawful freedom of action. See Hamer v. Sidway, (1891) 124 NY 538. A promise to not do something that one has no right to do in the first place is not consideration. Throughout your entire spectrum of examples: there is no contract to breach; the intitial attempted theft was an offence; absent consent, it will never be lawful for John to take the car; any money accepted by John is likely an unjust enrichment.
First degree kidnapping is abducting with various exploitative intents such as ransom, using as human shield, or messing with government function. Second degree kidnapping is any abduction, with an exception if (1) The abduction is not coupled with intent to use or to threaten to use deadly force, (2) The actor is a relative of the person abducted, and (3) The actor's sole purpose is to assume lawful control of that person. "Abducting" is defined as To restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either: a. Secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or b. Using or threatening to use deadly physical force. Given that, the act is probably not abduction there not kidnapping. Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree exists is a person restrains another (with the aforementioned familial custody exception). "Restraining" is To intentionally or knowingly restrict a person's movements unlawfully and without consent, so as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved. Restraint is “without consent” if it is accomplished by: a. Physical force, intimidation or deception, or b. Any means, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than 16 years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement. Suppose the victim is between 16 and 18, the accused is not a relative etc. Also suppose the victim was was not shoved into the car nor were there threats, but was enticed to enter voluntarily – and then once on the road, the true intent was revealed. E.g. "Let's go to the DQ"; "Okay, sounds fun"; (gets in car, drives past the DQ); "I thought we'd go to the DQ on the other side of the state". This could constitute deception (in particular, which DQ and what the real plan is). So whether this is "restraining" depends on the circumstances.
Depending on the circumstances, it may be irrelevant whether or not the the terms of service contain an express clause dealing with inaccurate information. For example, in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, under section 2(1) of the Fraud Act 2006, if you dishonestly make a representation which is untrue or misleading with the intention to make a gain or cause someone a loss you will commit the offence of fraud. This could arise for example if you give a false name intending to obstruct the other party from being able to pursue you for any breach of your contractual obligations (e.g. non-payment for services). As for whether or not you would breach any clause in the contract requiring you to provide accurate information, it's very hard to say without seeing the exact wording and context of the clause.
The University is probably entitled to put a term like this in its contract. In general, one can waive in advance, liability for negligence, but not gross negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, reckless conduct, or intentional conduct, from the person seeking the waiver. The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the validity of these clauses in the case of Gina Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises LLC (August 5, 2010), which involved a negligence waiver in a contract with a private gym. Also, since this is conditions on an afternoon of fun activities, rather than something mandatory or necessary, this waiver does not appear to be conditioned on giving up a substantial thing to which you are otherwise entitled. If the waiver were conditions upon something which you had an unconditional right to (e.g. a public high school education), it might not be valid because it would not be supported by valid consideration. In contrast, here, you get the right to participate in something fun, which you did not have an unconditional right to have, in exchange for the liability waiver.
Since you asked about any jurisdiction, and presumably any common law jurisdiction, in which one of the elements of theft is the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property, here's the UK* answer. Regarding borrowing specifically, the UK statute referring to theft - the Theft Act 1968 - provides for this in section 6(1): A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. In other words, a thief may say 'I only wished to borrow it', but that won't necessarily amount to a defence under English law. It depends on how long (s)he borrows it for, and how (s)he treats it while borrowing it. In addition, the case law clarifies what is meant by 'his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights'. This has been held to mean: Selling, Bargaining with. R v Cahill, R v Lloyd Rendering Useless. DPP v J Dealing with in a manner which risks its loss. R v Fernandes, R v Marshall Borrowing in certain circumstances. R v Lloyd Pawning. s6(2) Theft Act 1968 Not enough to just deal with it. R v Mitchell So how do we prove whether someone intended to deprive the owner of the property permanently, or at least permanently enough to amount to an offence under the Act? The answer seems to be that we look at how they deal with it, and what condition they leave the property in. If they do any of the things listed above, with the exception of no. 6, then they have demonstrated an intent to permanently deprive; if they merely use the property, then that isn't enough to show such intent. You asked specifically: I am looking for an answer that explains whether someone who credibly asserts – e.g., by advance sworn affidavit – that they intend to return the item can be convicted of theft, or any other crime, for taking someone else's property for an extended but not infinite period of time. In the case of R v Lloyd, the court held borrowing would become intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property if 'all goodness, virtue and practical value is gone'. So if someone swore they were planning on returning the item, the court could nonetheless convict them of theft if they held on to the item for so long, and treated it as their own to such an extent, that all its value was gone. (In R v Lloyd, the items in question were films, and as they were returned in much the same condition as they'd originally been in, this was held not to be intention to permanently deprive, and therefore not to be theft.) *By 'UK' I mean 'English and Welsh'; the answer may be different in Scotland.
You are deeply confused, probably by the blogs of a conspiracy theorist (perhaps discussing the Sovereign Citizen Movement mentioned in the comments), whom it would be helpful for you to reference. In fact, people with and without lawyers claim common law rights in the ordinary courts of the UK every day, in the lion's share of civil lawsuits. For example: There is a common law right to sue for damages when someone breaches a contract by not paying a bill that they owe. A defendant, meanwhile, has a common law right to defend against such a suit on grounds, for example, that the debt has been paid or that the debt is not owed because there was no agreement to pay in the first place. The substantive right of an owner of real property to evict a tenant who breaches a lease arises at common law, even though statutes spell out the process for enforcing that right. Furthermore, the way that ownership of real property is established (i.e. through a chain of title involving purchases by deeds) likewise arises at common law. The defendant meanwhile has a common law defense to a claim for rent for the remainder of the period in a lease after an eviction for failure of the landlord to mitigate damages if the landlord does not make a reasonable effort to find a new tenant. The right to sue someone who negligently caused an accident that injured you is a common law right.