Is the formalism &quot;I put you on notice&quot; important, in UK law, or can a less formal wording be equivalent? Example case: a high value car specialist/expert sold me a car with a serious defect they should have known of and disclosed (such as past accident history) while warranting the condition was good/undamaged. It could actually be any high value asset sold by a skilled specialist. The vendor is likely (in my view) to dispute the scale of the issue, and can't be asked to do any repair. They probably should inspect and may wish to commission a report. For whatever reason I don't seek repudiation/rescission, perhaps I've begun using the asset and I will best mitigate my loss by paying some specialist to repair the defect. But I need to do the repair work soon, it can't be left long. So, anticipating at least a legal claim (High Court rather than County Court size) even if it resolves before a hearing, I want to write to them and say something like this: "I currently intend to have the asset repaired, to minimise my losses by repairing the defect, and this must be done very soon. I therefore place you on notice that if you wish to examine the defects yourself, you must make arrangements to do so within 21 days, and if you choose not to do so, then after this time it may not be possible to do so other than from photographs and engineer's reports. This may be detrimental to any defence if the matter goes to a court." My question is, the last part absolutely covers me and ensures any claim that they couldn't examine, doesn't prejudice my position. But it's formal and also quite antagonistic. I'd like to word it a lot softer by missing out the words "I therefore place you on notice that", and simply start with "If you wish....", which makes it softer but doesn't remove any of the rest. My question is, is there any magic about the formal wording "I place you on notice that" (or magic effect on the protection I get from those words), which will be lost if I don't use that exact form of words? Or can I reword it more collegially by removing that clause without impact? Also does it add anything to have stated the effect if they do not do so ("This may be detrimental..."), if the matter proceeds to a court case?
The language "I therefore place you on notice that" in your proposed missive is superfluous and adds nothing that is legally relevant. Flourishes like that are common among former paralegals, court clerks, common law country notaries, and other non-lawyers who want to sound legalistic but don't really have the relevant legal knowledge. It is common to say "I put so and so on notice that" in a legal opinion or a summary of a case, but mildly uncommon and not necessary to put those magic words in the notice itself in a situation like this where there is no prescribed statutory language that must be used on a specific legal form. In this situation the important thing is that the person is actually made aware of the situation, not that you conform to a statutory form. Also does it add anything to have stated the effect if they do not do so ("This may be detrimental..."), if the matter proceeds to a court case? If they complain of a lack of an opportunity to inspect in a later court case, it allows you to say, "I told you so and I gave you a chance to do something about it" which might be fairly convincing to a judge and would probably overcome any arguments that you engaged in spoliation of evidence.
Are you at fault for the fact that Car C read ended you? Close call. A jury could go either way. Can this accident which is now appearing on your insurance be disputed as Car A did not report anything? Essentially I'm just wondering what the odds are that this can removed from Car A's record. I think that it is unlikely that the situation you suggest would happen, even though anything is possible. Usually there needs to be a claim of actual damage for an insurance company to treat it as an accident. The usual rule is "no harm, no foul" (unless someone is cited for a traffic violation). Insurance company accident records are not regulated to the same extent as say, credit reports. You could threaten to sue the company for negligent misrepresentation, or the driver of Car C for defamation, in order to try to get this statement removed, but those would be hard cases to win since you are at least arguably at fault and fault is to some extent a matter of opinion. It would be much easier to win a suit like that if the accident didn't happen at all. Here, it would be undisputed that an accident happened at a particular time and place involving certain cars and drivers, and the dispute is only over who was at fault.
Assuming you have a six-month Assured Shorthold Tenancy, you don't have to give any notice at all. As long as you are not in occupation after the end of the tenancy (which means moving out before it ends), that's it. For example, this page from Shelter says: The general rule is that the tenant can leave on the last day of a fixed-term tenancy without giving notice, and this will end the tenancy.[2] If the tenant remains even a day longer than the last day of a fixed-term tenancy, a statutory periodic assured shorthold tenancy will arise, which the tenant can end by serving a valid notice to quit. [2] Right d. Flower v. Darby (1786) 1 T.R. 159; Cobb v Stokes (1807) 8 East 358. This is extremely bad news for landlords, who don't (necessarily) get any notice that they have a void. In general, I would say you ought to give a month's notice (full disclosure, I am a landlord), on the other hand, if they haven't fulfilled their responsibilities perhaps not (but you may have an exaggerated idea of their responsibilities). If you do this, don't expect to get a good reference from your landlord! (Which is going to make it harder to find somewhere else to live). You should also anticipate difficulties in recovering your deposit (you are legally entitled to it back, but that doesn't mean your landlord can't be difficult about it - possibly even requiring you to sue for it). I have just noticed the second part of your question. If you do nothing (in other words, stay in residence), at the end of your Assured Shorthold Tenancy you will switch to a periodic tenancy. The landlord can't force you to switch to another six-month contract, but on the other hand, if you don't, they are perfectly entitled to give you two months notice. If they are smart, they will give you this notice now, so that you can only stay for two months on the periodic tenancy. Note that the letting agent has an incentive to get you and the landlord to sign another contract (they can charge the landlord a fee for it), so they may not be being entirely honest about whether a periodic tenancy is an option. (On the other hand, a poor landlord may be more interested in locking a tenant in for six months.)
One analysis is in Bow Cycle &amp; Motor Co. Ltd. v. Murray, 2006 ABPC 366, by Judge O'Ferrall (now Justice of the Court of Appeal of Alberta). The defendant sat on a motorcycle, positioned it fully upright, and when he returned the motorcycle to rest on the kickstand, the bike crashed to the floor. There were three potential paths to liabilty argued, none successfully: negligence (for example, if the defendant had repositioned the kickstand at any point—there was no evidence of this) trespass to goods (but this would have required intentional or negligent treatment of the good) contract (which would have required a clear &quot;you break it, you buy it&quot; policy with express statement that the customer would be liable even for non-negligent damage—there wasn't) Context mattered. Liability might be made more strict more easily in a china shop. The judge wrote: in the end, this case must turn on the presence or absence of negligence because, at least in the circumstances of a motorcycle shop, a “break it, you buy it” arrangement would have required an element of fault on the part of the breaker, absent a very clearly communicated term that the customer pays irrespective of negligence. There being no such term and negligence having not been proven, I find the Defendant not liable. In so doing, I considered the china shop analogy. It may be that in a china shop one could infer that the customer pays for broken items irrespective of fault because there is no need to touch the item in order to make the purchase decision. But in order to make an informed purchase of a motorcycle, the purchaser must try it on for size and the fact that he must do so makes it much more difficult to infer a no-fault promise to pay for damage howsoever caused.
This is complicated. This is state dependent, and as of time of writing, you haven't disclosed what is the relevant state. This is something you should hire/retain a (divorce) lawyer, and discuss with them. The law can be messy; divorces are always messy. The answer is the most common answer in law: it depends, on specific facts. See above, get a lawyer. The first question is &quot;is the money in this investment account a shared asset that I have any claim to&quot;. The answer is &quot;it depends&quot;. What state are you in, and where did this money come from? Depending on various factors, the answer might very well be &quot;no&quot;, in which case, this money (and it's loss) may not affect you at all. If you do have some claim to this money, then it gets even more complicated. &quot;Can this asset be retrieved in a court proceeding and say that he was squandering money?&quot; Maybe, kinda. Technically no (because of the way you phrased that). I'll explain. In a divorce, &quot;shared&quot; assets are divided equitably (Note &quot;equitably&quot; does NOT mean &quot;equally&quot;) based on numerous factors, often on a case-by-case basis, and which factors depend on the state. (Therefore, the lawyer you retain should be licensed in the state you/your husband are filing for divorce in). Before your divorce, both sides have (in general) the right to use shared property. They do not have the right to intentionally damage or destroy said property. One complication/grey area is normal use that degrades or damages the value of said property. For example, imagine a classic sports car. Many people drive them for fun; this is normal use. On the other hand, using a classic sports car decreases the value. Is using the sports car unreasonable damage? This is a fact based determination to be made based on specifics. Can this asset be retrieved in a court proceeding [if I] say that he was squandering money? (correction to what I think think you meant). Maybe, but probably not. You can say whatever you want in court, but what matters is what you can prove, as you are the bearing the burden of proof due to making the accusation (and you must prove it to the standard required by the court in your case for your particular motion/accusation, which might be the standard of &quot;the balance of probabilities/more likely than not&quot; or &quot;clear and convincing evidence&quot;, or something else; it's complicated, fact dependent and state dependent, so get a lawyer). You don't need to prove that he lost money. If he was day trading before, the fact that he was day trading after the separation is not held against him; day trading is risky, therefore you have to prove that he intentionally lost money (and, potentially, that he intentionally lost money to deny money to you in the divorce, as opposed to e.g. tax loss harvesting). I would recommend hiring a divorce lawyer and discussing it with them.
Inform him of what you intend to do and by what by what date. Make sure that you can document that you did give him notice -- so not sure sure if Whatsapp/text would do -- I would use a registered letter, and a letter which is also sent in CC to your solicitor. He can always sue you, but he does not stand to win if you can show that you have given him fair warning.
A new car should be a new car, without any damage. But, if you did sign the contract after you saw the one scratch at night, the dealer may have needed to disclose in writing all of the damage (what you first saw and what you saw the next day) in writing before you signed. From NC Department of Justice - Disclosing New Car Damage • Dealers are required to disclose in writing any damage and repair that exceeds five percent of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price before you enter into a contract. • Dealers are not required to disclose any damage to glass, tires or bumpers if the damaged item has been replaced with original or comparable equipment. • If a new car has been repaired for damages that do not exceed five percent of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price, then the dealer does not have to tell you about the damage unless you ask. • If a new car has been damaged more than the five percent threshold, the North Carolina Automobile Dealer’s Association recommends that its dealers disclose it in writing on company letterhead. A copy of this disclosure should be submitted along with the title to the Division of Motor Vehicles. So if you are now in possession of the car, tell the dealer you have checked with the NC DOJ and ask the dealer about the total cost of the damages and see what they say. It's a good idea to take photos, and you may want to get a repair estimate from a body shop to calcuate yourself if the damage is over the 5% threshold. If you suspect the car may not be new and may be used, that's serious, and the dealer will have had to fully disclose that in writing. You can talk to the DMV or use the VIN number to check CARFAX. If you have problems with the dealer or suspect the car may not be new, you can contact the DOJ at the URL above or call them at 1-877-5-NO-SCAM.
Under the Berne Convention, a copyright notice is not required at all, although using one is good practice. Using one usually eliminates the claimed status of "innocent infringement", which, if found true by a court, greatly reduces damage awards. It is usual to place such notices at or near the start of a work. That is where people tend to look for them, and I don't see any good reason not to follow this practice. The book tradition is the the copyright page comes before any part of the actual work, including the table of contents, sometimes with a continuation at the end of the work, if there is more than one page of notices. But that is not now a legal requirement, if it ever was. In short, there are no rigid rules on this, but putting a copyright notice at or quite near the start is good practice, and I would suggest sticking to it.