When a used car is sold &quot;as-is&quot;, does that excuse seller from selling the car with smog certificate in California? California law states the seller is always responsible for selling the car with a smog certificate. If the seller sells the car saying it is "as-is" does that excuses him/her from previously obtaining this certificate? Which legal risks the seller would be exposed to if he/she does that?
No, selling a car "as-is" is not a valid reason for not having a smog certificate. According to the DMV here, the smog certificate must have been done within 90 days of the sale. The exceptions are: The transfer occurs between a spouse, domestic partner, sibling, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild. A biennial smog certification was submitted to DMV within 90 days prior to the vehicle transfer date (a vehicle inspection report may be required for proof of certification). There are a few other exceptions based on the type/year of the car like gasoline-powered and older than 1975 or electric-powered.
The jurisdiction does matter. Generally, at the national level, the Federal Trade Commission prohibits deceptive advertising. From the FTC's website, &quot;Advertising FAQ's: A Guide for Small Business:&quot; When can a company advertise a &quot;going out of business sale&quot;? The short answer is: only when a store is going out of business. It would be deceptive to advertise a “going out of business sale” when a store is not going out of business. If a store in your area is advertising what looks to be a bogus “going out of business sale,” contact your state Attorney General’s office. In their answer, they specify to contact your state Attorney General's office. Many states and localities have specific statutes that regulate &quot;going out of business sales.&quot; San Diego, California, for example, requires a permit from the San Diego Police Department whenever a business has a &quot;closing-out sale.&quot; Their permit application indicates a list of the types of sales that are subject to the ordinance and closes with: Or, any other term tending to convey to the public that upon the disposal of the stocks of goods on hand, the business will cease and be discontinued. The permit in San Diego is valid for 60 days and the business is required to provide an inventory of all goods that will be sold as part of the liquidation sale. The requirements of the city of San Diego are similar to many other jurisdictions. Some of these requirements are specified at the state level, such as Texas (Business &amp; Commerce Code Section 17.45 Deceptive Trade Practices), while other states leave it to the localities. California doesn't appear to have a statewide &quot;going out of business sale&quot; law but they do have other laws and regulations governing false advertising. California Business and Profession Code section 17500 prohibits untrue or misleading advertising. The California Bureau of Home Furnishings has promulgated regulations based on this statute to prohibit such sales to only include items that are on premises, in the warehouse or in process from previous orders the date the sale is announced This regulation for furniture retailers in California is common among the &quot;going out of business sale&quot; regulations in that it prohibits the closing business from purchasing new merchandise while liquidating and is one of the reasons that inventory lists are required when applying for a permit for a liquidation sale. As a side note, I was always amused by a store on Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco that had a &quot;Going Out For Business&quot; sign in their store window. I probably read it a hundred times over the years before I realized what it really said.
It is their property, so keeping it without permission could well be seen as theft. I think you are obliged to make reasonable attempts to notify them you have their property before using it or selling it. Just like if someone left the item at your house after a party. If they want it back, however, it is at their cost, you should not be out of pocket for their failure to deliver within a reasonable time-frame; you may find they've already claimed the cost of the product from the courier and don't want it back. You are well within your rights to offer to buy it from them, and them to accept or reject that offer, this is a separate contract to the original sale.
This an instance of the general rule ignorantia legis neminem excusat: ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the municipal ordinances state that a particular place does not allow parking at certain times, then if you park there you have violated the law and will get ticketed. There is no requirement that there be signs prominently posted saying that you must obey the law in this particular location. A law might itself require there to be postings, for example speed limit law pertaining to school zones typically are stated in terms of "posted" boundaries. Assuming that the ordinance doesn't have such a "as posted" requirement, you have no legal leg to stand on, and the burden must be shifted to your political leg. If, for example, you were in Pennsylvania, 75 PaCSA 3353(d) permits local parking ordinances: The department on State-designated highways and local authorities on any highway within their boundaries may by erection of official traffic-control devices prohibit, limit or restrict stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on any highway where engineering and traffic studies indicate that stopping, standing or parking would constitute a safety hazard or where the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles would unduly interfere with the free movement of traffic. Signs are kinds of traffic control devices. Since PA does not statutorily prohibit overnight parking, any local restrictions on overnight parking would require signage. Thus restriction such as this one that "The following vehicles shall not be parked between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on the streets...", applying to commercial vehicles among others, would require a sign. That borough has an interesting ordinance stating that In the event of a conflict between the Codified Ordinances of the Borough of Lansdale and the provisions set forth in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3351 through 3354, as amended from time to time, the provisions of the Codified Ordinances of the Borough of Lansdale shall control. Generally speaking, local ordinances are subordinate to state law, so this provision is legally questionable (although: the borough does not actually deny the signage requirement, so technically this is not a conflict, it is just ignoring state law – if there is no signage). The borough could of course argue that they were unaware of the state requirement to post no-parking signs, but ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
Can anyone help me understand who's liable for any damages that occur? Yes, a judge. Seriously, in almost all cases in a collision between a turning car and a straight traveling cyclist, the car will be held responsible on the basis that the turn should not be commenced unless and until it can be completed safely. If the car has to stop during the turn, the turn shouldn't have been commenced. The only exception would be if evidence could be provided that the cyclist collided deliberately. Does it matter if it's the car that's damaged or the bicycle that's damaged? No
You have acknowledged that the house was in "new" condition, which establishes a baseline for determining if the present state is normal wear and tear. The lease and California law agree that normal wear and tear is not the responsibility of the tenant. You may then need to sue the landlord in small claims court to get the remainder of the deposit (the above guide will be useful). The thing that is not clear is exactly what constitutes "normal wear and tear". The state guide tends to emphasize extreme forms of damage such as dogs chewing the woodwork, or cigarette burns. If you do ordinary cleaning on the walls, windows, carpets etc. then it is more likely that the judge will find in your favor.
California Vehicle Code chapter 11, division 7, article 1, section 22350: No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. Section 22358.5: It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions. Without knowing exactly what questions the officer was asked, it's impossible to know why you were ticketed and why you were found guilty, but "reasonable or prudent" and "endangers the safety of [others]" covers a great deal of ground.
Nobody know what constitutes "scamming", because it's not a legal concept. There is no sense in which receiving a gift itself constitutes "scamming". Since scamming is vaguely about dishonesty, there is an imaginable scenario where you could be liable for a false representation, for example if you impersonated someone else in order to receive something of value, you could be prosecuted in California. You should not assume that a police officer saying "That's not our problem" is proof that you committed no crime or civil tort. Your lawyer can give you advice as to whether you have anything to worry about, legally. The other stuff about being called a scammer or having pictures posted might be a violation of Facebook's TOS, and you can always complain to Facebook central authorities. Technically, uploading a picture that someone took is a violation of copyright law, if you didn't give permission to do so. It might run afoul of some state~provincial or national privacy law, depending on where this takes place.