If a customer doesn&#39;t have money on them, is there way to put down their information so that they pay later for what they took? I want to sell articles of clothing but it is possible that the individual doesn't have money on them. Can I put down their information and have them sign to where they can walk away with the article of clothing and pay me later?
Yes The document is called an invoice and the customer has taken the clothing “on account”. Most businesses of any size outside the retail sector operate this way. Remember that you are effectively lending your customer money. What are the terms of this loan? What are you going to do when/if they don’t pay? You need to deal with this either in your sale contract or a separate credit contract.
Is that extortion? false advertising? or in any way illegal? Not at all. The owner of the site is simply exercising his right as outlined in the terms and conditions from when the user signed up. And giving users an option for continued use of the site (that is, for him not to exercise a right of which they were always aware) does not constitute extortion.
Probably Terms and Conditions extract: 7.2 Limitations on Closing Your Account. You may not close your Account to evade an investigation. If you attempt to close your Account while we are conducting an investigation, we may hold your funds for up to 180 Days to protect PayPal or a third party against the risk of Reversals, Chargebacks, Claims, fees, fines, penalties and other liabilities of whatever nature. You will remain liable for all obligations related to your Account even after the Account is closed. 10.6 Information about you a. PayPal reserves the right to request additional information from you, other than what is referred to in this Agreement, to allow it to comply with its anti-money laundering obligations. You agree to comply with any request for further information as we reasonably require to enable us to comply with our anti-money laundering obligations. This may include, without limitation, requiring you to fax, email or otherwise provide to us certain identification documents. You also agree to provide us, upon our reasonable request and at your own expense, information about your finance and operations, including, without limitation, your most recent financial statements (certified or otherwise) and merchant processing statements (if applicable). This is the contract that you agreed to be bound by.
There is a form, which both parties to the sale sign. Note that it does entail paying sales tax. There are other aspects to the sale which reinforce the "It's not my car anymore" message, such as returning the plates and getting a receipt for the plates. Even doing the sale in a DMV lot would not help you.
The customer list is indeed a trade secret if the shop kept its customer list secret and has an advantage from having that customer list, while others don’t have it. And I would think that is the case, because a competitor laying their hands on the list could for example send special offers to the customers in the list. The question is whether your two hairdressers took that customer list and whether the store has reasonable evidence that they did. If customers find out where their favourite hairdresser moved to that’s no legal problem. Can’t understand why no attorney wants to take the case. To the attorney it doesn’t make a difference whether they took the list or not. If they took the list then his or her job is to end the case with the smallest possible amount of damages being paid. PS. Just read in the comments that there is an accusation of "intentional interference with economic relationship". I would want a lawyer who knows the difference between perfectly legal competition which includes trying to get customers to move their business, and "intentional interference with economic relationship". PS. Really make sure that these guys appear in court. With a lawyer. Not appearing means that if the plaintiff says "Judge, these guys did X, punish them!" and they are not there to say "We absolutely didn't do X, prove it if you can", the judge will assume that they did X.
You didn't consent to being ripped off. You did however fail to grasp the terms under which you were permitted to park on their property, and you failed to pursue an alternative (such as looking for change; using a credit card). It is possible that you should have known that this was a no-change-given machine, since one can often see that there is no mechanism on these machines whereby you can actually get change. However, if you have clear proof that you owed $6 and you paid $10, then 4 of those dollars are properly yours, and there is a reasonable chance that you could prevail in a suit against them. There is even a greater chance that they would refund the difference, just as a sensible business practice. "Exact change" is legal and can even be the law, especially in government-run transportation systems.
What does the contract say? I write that so often I should get a stamp made. If the contract is silent, then it is implied that payment in US currency is acceptable, as is any other method of payment the parties agree to. As you have correctly quoted, there is no limit to the number of US coins that are valid for payments, unlike in many other jurisdictions where there is such a limit. Accept the coins, make the tenant wait while you count them one by one and then give them a receipt. Oh, and change your lease when you can to nominate sensible forms of payment like electronic transfer.
As described, no. Paying employees with benefits instead of money is called in kind remuneration. There are various limits on in kind payments around the world, including the US. Very generally, in kind payments are only allowed for particular industries and occupations, only allowed up to a certain dollar value, and only allowed as a certain fraction of the employee's wages. Furthermore, the value of the benefit can't exceed the actual cost to the employer - a meal that's priced at $7.25 on the menu is sold at a profit, and would be worth less than the menu price as in kind remuneration. So, given the scenario described, a restaurant employer could not replace 100% of their employee's wages with food sold for the same amount. It's too high a percentage of the wage paid as in kind payment, and the menu price equivalent of the wage would not have sufficient in kind value. A more detailed description of in kind payment laws can be found here. It's a rather long document that's not particularly well-organized, and is structured by describing various aspects of law in different geographic locations, rather than describing all aspects of the law in a location-specific manner. I was able to find US-specific law by searching the document for "United States".