Can I make an auto shop pay for oil damage from a defective oil filter? About ten days ago I had a flat tired replaced at a local shop and added an oil change to the work order. A day later I notice a huge oil stain (about 3 ft x 10 ft) that flowed over the pavers on my driveway. I went back to the car shop for an evaluation and was informed that the oil filter was defective. They replaced it and went on my way. I can’t get the oil off the driveway after multiple attempts with multiple suggestions. In California do I have legal recourse for repair or replacing the affected pavers?
You can sue the shop for defective installation, or you can sue the manufacturer for a defective part. You will have to prove that it is the fault of the person that you are suing, so the shop will probably argue that it was a defective part that they couldn't have known about, and the manufacturer will probably argue that it was due to defective installation. If you have competent third-party testimony that proves that the part itself was defective, you may prevail, though if you can get them to write up a technical report that supports your contention, the manufacturer may simplify things by compensating you, if you waive your right to sue for damages. However, this may not be an option unless the shop retained the filter and can point to a specific manufacturing defect.
No crime is committed if a person performs a service and ineptly describes the service. To change the context a bit, I might contract with a guy to build a wall and he says he will charge me for installing a "Swedish drain" when in fact what he will install is called a "French drain". If he installs the thing, it does not matter (legally) whether he calls it by the conventional name. I am not relying on the distinction between French and "Swedish" drains, and that is not material. However: he may specify that the drain will use 18 inches of 1.5" drain rock, but he uses (and intends to use) 18 mm of 3/8" crushed rock, and that is a material fact. In the latter case, he has committed fraud. The same considerations go into dealing with "unnecessary" service, which however is more about "what he said". Let's assume that you come in with a flat tire and the mechanic offers to overhaul the engine. If you agree to this service, that is not fraud, because he did not say something false that you depended on. If, however, you ask "Why would overhauling the engine be necessary" and he says, I dunno, "Because by law, I can't repair a tire without first overhauling the engine", or "Because you flat was caused by astral radiation from a poorly-tuned engine", then that would be fraud – the statements are false, and you relied to their truth, in agreeing to the service. On the third hand, reasonable statements like "it might help", "it could work" are not deceptive, even if it turns out they are not true. Fraud is not about statements that "turn out not to be supported by the facts", it is about statements that you know to be false.
The one answerable question regards the legality of taking the damages out of the security deposit. Consulting the Ohio landlord-tenant law, the tenant has various obligations including to Dispose of all rubbish, garbage, and other waste in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner ... Comply with the requirements imposed on tenants by all applicable state and local housing, health, and safety codes The citation should indicate the specific violation, but dumping trash in the street is a health violation. The act that says that if the tenant violates his obligation, the landlord may recover any actual damages that result from the violation together with reasonable attorney's fees. Causing a landlord to be saddled with a fine is actual damage. It would be pointless to contest the fine with the city, unless you are alleging that some vandal drove by and dumped trash in the road near your apartment. (Even then, unless you already reported supposed illegal dumping to the sheriff, it is unlikely that you wouldn't be held responsible).
Courts, particularly traffic courts, tend to take a police officer's word over that of an accused person. While legally the limit is 70, the driver has very little recourse if the officer claims falsely that the actual speed was over 70. But the deterant effect of a posted limit is lost, since drivers in general have no way to know that Officer O will ticket anyone going over 60. I suppose that driver D, or D's lawyer, could subpoena calibration records of any radar gun or other measuring devise used, and could insist on its being tested. However, unless they had reason to think there was an issue, I wonder if D and D's lawyer would go through that process. Some speed measuring devices print a paper slip showing the date and time along with the reading. If such a device was used that record would be harder to alter. Some cars are now equipped with devices provided by insurance companies that record speeds and other driving info in a secure way to help judge a driver's safety and allow individual rate setting. It might be that the record from such a device would be admissible to show the speed was under the posted limit. But there is a sense in which the law is what the police and the courts enforce. If anyone who drives the road over 60 is cited and must pay, one could say the effective limit there is 60.
Wave Broadband is a private company; they can probably decide to not provide service to an address that is in arrears or collections. I'm sure there is a clause in their service contract that states they can do that, and there would be local or state laws to support that. Whatever public service commission governs the state may also allow that. It's possible that Wave is breaking the law by denying service to a whole address, but doubtful. You can check with the state level public service commission.
There don't appear to be any Santa Clara-specific laws on the matter, so California law (including this) would govern this situation. A landlord generally has an obligation to maintain the premise in habitable condition (can't stick you with the bill for repairing the water main), and has to fulfill the obligations of the lease (if the lease says that a working washing machine is part of the premise, the landlord has to fix it if it breaks). An AC is not part of what makes a unit &quot;habitable&quot; in the legal sense. You should have to scrutinize exactly what the lease says about the AC, but saying that it is provided &quot;as is&quot; indicates that the landlord is disclaiming any obligation to fix it if it breaks. You are allowed to use it, but if it breaks, he won't fix it. The fact that he has no obligation to fix it does not relieve you of your duty to care for his property (irrespective of the fact that it was abandoned by a prior tenant – there's a notification procedure regarding abandoned real property, which I assume the landlord followed so it is his AC). Your obligation to compensate the landlord for damaging his property is not triggered by his legal obligation to maintain the property, it is triggered by the fact that it is his property. So you are legally on the hook: under §1929, &quot;The hirer of a thing must repair all deteriorations or injuries thereto occasioned by his want of ordinary care&quot;. However, the size of the hook is not clear: the cost of replacement or repair could be vastly higher than the actual value of the unit. There is a legal concept of &quot;unjust enrichment&quot; that could be applicable, if the landlord plans to bill you $500 for a new AC which he got for free, but you'd probably need to hire a lawyer to make a solid legal argument in court.
In all honesty, this completely depends on the judge you happen to get that will hear your case. There's no straight-forward "yes this will work" or "no this won't work" answer in a case like this. But a couple things to keep in mind: The fact that he was from out of town doesn't matter. If signs were displayed, then he has to obey the signs. Your argument about the placement of the signs may or may not work, again depending on the judge. But make sure you take more evidence than just some numbers derived from guess work (you'll need pictures of where the car was parked, where the signs are at, and exact measurement between the two signs and the vehicle, pictures of obstructions, etc). It's up to you to decide whether collecting all of that is worth the $45. Someone has to pay the ticket. You cannot just go to court and get it dismissed because you weren't driving. By default, the parking ticket obligation falls onto the owner of the vehicle. If you know you weren't driving, you can then request the person who was to reimburse you, or even sue them for reimbursement if they refuse. Continuing from #2, in some jurisdictions and especially if the parking ticket was issued by a private company (like at a strip mall) that doesn't use police enforcement for parking, you can provide them with the name and address of the person who was driving and have them re-send the ticket to the correct person, but not always. However, relying on this is a bad idea. The ticket, while issued to another person, is still attached to your vehicle and if the other person refuses to pay, it's your vehicle that will be impounded, booted, etc if the ticket is left delinquent. Then you just have even more hassles to deal with. Having outstanding tickets for your vehicle could also affect your insurance premiums. Don't let this linger for too long. Get on top of it and decide what the two of you are going to do as soon as possible.
tl;dr: No, the dealership generally won't be able to recover the car if its act of parting with the car involved &quot;entrusting&quot; it to someone. That said, it can pursue Doe for fraud. U.S. Background First off, when the dealership gets swindled the situation is distinctly different from one where the car is stolen from the dealership. If stolen, we'd expect the dealership to be able to recover the car, as in O'Keeffe v. Snyder, 416 A.2d 862, 83 N.J. 478 (1980). If swindled, we'd expect the dealership to be out of luck, as in Phelps v. McQuade, 220 N.Y. 232 (N.Y. 1917). Why the different result? It comes down to the idea that when the car gets moved on to an unsuspecting buyer, either the innocent buyer or the dealership is going to get hurt by the bad act. This is because only one party (buyer or dealer) is going to get to keep the car, and the other is going to be upset. The court has to essentially choose who is going to get hurt. The way it does this is by looking at how the car left the dealer's lot. In cases of swindling, the dealer at least had some say in the matter: it &quot;entrusted&quot; the car to the swindler by what's called a &quot;voidable&quot; title. This is enshrined in the UCC: § 2-403. Power to Transfer; Good Faith Purchase of Goods; &quot;Entrusting&quot;. (1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though (a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser, or (b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or (c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a &quot;cash sale&quot;, or (d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law. (2) Any entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyerin ordinary course of business. (3) &quot;Entrusting&quot; includes any delivery and any acquiescence in retention of possession regardless of any condition expressed between the parties to the delivery or acquiescence and regardless of whether the procurement of the entrusting or the possessor's disposition of the goodshave been such as to be larcenous under the criminal law. There's an old saying: &quot;title, like a stream, only rises as high as its source.&quot; In the case of a theft, the thief didn't have title in the first place and thus can't transfer it. So we'd expect the dealer to get the car back (buyer gets hurt) In your case, the swindler's bogus check falls under UCC §2-403(1)(b). Thus the swindler gets a voidable title and then has the power to transfer the car to an unsuspecting buyer. So we'd expect the buyer to keep the car (dealer gets hurt). Note: the title is &quot;voidable&quot; because, if the dealer realizes the check is dishonored, it can void the title.