What is my relationship with a service company contracted by my insurance company? I am wondering about the legal terminologies that define a relationship that I have with a service company. Some maintenance work was needed for several appliances at my home, so I contacted my warranty company. My home warranty company dispatched a technician from a service company to take care of it. I paid my warranty company a service fee, which I think of as a deductible in an insurance policy. Since I didn't pay the service company directly, legally am I still a client of the service company? I was told by them that I do not have a client relationship with them as the warranty company was the client in this transaction. Is that correct? I am curious what legal terms/concepts are applicable in this situation and if I have a legal relationship with a service company which provides service on properties I own but is not paid by me.
None The contractual chain is you &lt;-> warranty company &lt;-> (potentially others you don’t know about) &lt;-> service provider. Should something go wrong, you would sue your warranty company who might (it is up to them) then sue the service provider. Notwithstanding, it’s likely the service company owes you a duty of care and would be directly liable to you for a negligence claim.
She damaged you - your beef is with her. If she has insurance, the choice of is she wants to claim or not is up to her. She is not obliged to make a claim and probably not obliged to tell her insurer about it. Perhaps she has a $20,000 excess. Perhaps she is a person not covered by the policy (too young or otherwise excluded) Perhaps she is (legitimately) concerned that making claims will increase her premium. Now, her contract may have a clause requiring her to disclose all accidents either ongoing or on renewal. However, the doctrine of privity of contract means that whether she does or not is no one’s business but hers and her insurer.
In general, no. When the salesperson quoted the price and you accepted it you were each bound to that price by contract. Consideration under a contract must be sufficient (something of value for something of value) but it doesn't have to be fair: you can be obliged to pay $2 million for a cupcake or sell your Picasso for $1. You were and are under no obligation to pay and could successfully sue for the return of your money. To further clarify, it doesn't matter if the store has or has not provided the goods or services when they discover their error: they are obliged to perform their side of the contract without additional payment. Further, if this was a consumer contract then some sort of consumer protection law almost certainly applies. This would probably make what the store did not only a breach of contract but an offence against the state as well.
In general, "a signed piece of paper" is not "a contract". It may be a record of a contract, but the contract itself is the meeting of minds where an agreement is reached and doesn't depend on the existence of the piece of paper. (Depending on the jurisdiction, some sorts of contract are required to be in writing, but this doesn't usually apply to employment contracts; it's usually contracts involving land.) What is far more worrying to me is that you don't know how much they are going to pay you. That suggests there hasn't been a meeting of minds, and there is no contract. (It might be that "the going rate" is good enough to form a contract - to determine that would require advice from a local lawyer.) I suggest you don't write up a formal agreement, but nag your boss to decide how much they are actually going to pay you.
It is rather unclear what the facts are, and the legal answer would depend crucially on those facts. My understanding is that you bought a domain from a provider, and they allowed you to use a web server for some period. It also appears that you don't have a clear understanding of the contract, which may have been made online and you might not have retained a copy of the agreement (which would allow you to look at the terms). The assumption that failing to pay substitutes for explicitly cancelling a service is incorrect. If under the contract you agree to pay a certain amount per year, then you have been racking up charges for some time, and you would need to actually cancel. Ultimately, they could take you to court to force you to pay what you owe, although usually there are less drastic intermediate steps. In court, they would produce their documents to show that you owe money, and your attorney would somehow counter, perhaps by alleging that you had a good-faith belief that the contract had been terminated. It is possible that they simply messed up and failed to send you an invoice earlier, which could explain the lack of invoice. At any rate, the fact that you haven't gotten an invoice does not legally entitle you to avoid paying for the service, whether or not you use it. On the premise that they haven't taken back the domain (seems like they didn't), you can legally use it. However, if you do use it, then that would trash any claim that you believed the contract had been terminated (to argue "I thought it had been canceled" entails "and thus I didn't use the service").
A lease of land is not the same as a residential lease, the latter being strongly regulated by special laws. So caveat emptor is the default rule for land leases (see this article). You have to look at the laws of your state, but let's take Washington as an example. This is not a residential tenancy which is subject to different laws, it's just leasing land, similar to leasing a chainsaw or a car. Your implied warranty would be that the land is fit for the ordinary purposes for which land is used, and that is all. It might be worth wondering about whether building a cabin on the land changes your property tax liability.
The CEO, with his lawyer have tried to convince me that this only apply to current client and any past clients that I have work on. Is this true? No. It will be true only if they make that clarification in the clause or a properly added amendment. The clause currently has no indication that it is limited to "current client and any past clients that [you] have work[ed] on". The CEO's &amp; lawyer's refusal to amend the clause so as to make it consistent with their attempts [to persuade you] would be a red flag. Their inconsistent representations to you suggest that they are not planning to honor the covenant of good faith on which all contracts are premised. Should I expect the CEO to offer a fair contract or is this something you read and negotiate? You should require a contract that seems fair to you. And by "to you" I mean that it has to be in line with your expectations regardless of the average conditions in the labor market. Negotiations are not binding. They are merely a preamble to a contract, and that contract is binding. This is why you should reject a contract that falls short of your requirements. Some clauses are unlawful and/or void and unenforceable as unconscionable or for contravening legislation (unlawful clauses can and do arise even if drafted by attorneys). Thus, although you might not have to worry about those clauses in particular, the company's mere attempt to include them in a contract should alert you of the high risk of ending up with other abusive terms &amp; conditions which are binding and enforceable nonetheless.
You cannot contract outside the law Any "contract" that purports to break the law isn't a contract - it's an unenforceable agreement. For example, across all jurisdictions, a contract that is unconscionable is void. So is a contract that requires one of the parties to break the law - a "contract" for murder for example. In addition, you cannot call an employment relationship a "business" relationship - if the relationship meets the requirements of an employer-employee relationship then that's what it is and woe betide you if you haven't complied with all relevant entitlement, tax, insurance and safety laws. In addition, all of the relationships you listed are contracts.