Home warranty dropping the ball, during emergency situation. Any recourse? I opened a ticket in December when my heater failed. I called my home warranty company(HWA), opened a claim and asked for someone to come out and fix it. They said it would be at least a week, because it wasn't cold enough to escalate it to an emergency. The temperature outside with 29 degrees and, the temperature in my house was falling fast. I contacted Horizon, one of the more reputable names in furnace service in the area. They came out the next day. They told me my heat exchange was cracked and they would not be able to repair it. We picked the quickest option to get it replaced. By then we had been sleeping in front of the fireplace for a week and my upstairs was 34 degrees. I had to shut off the plumbing to the upper floors. After replacing the furnace I contacted the Home warranty company about a reimbursement ($2000) and they told be that since it wasn't pre-approved they could not do anything. Is there any legal recourse I have to take. I realize I need pre-approval, but the situation they left us with was unreasonable. By the way. This is in Merchantville (Camden county) New Jersey
Unless there is some surprise in the wording of your contract, you have no realistic legal recourse. You had a hope that the warranty could provide something which it does not provide. A "reasonable person" would read the wording of the contract and understand that it requires pre-approval, and does not include an exception clause "unless it gets really cold". You could hire a lawyer to sue them and maybe a judge would find against the company on some social policy grounds, i.e. the contract is against public policy (after all, under landlord-tenant laws, in the analogous situation the landlord would be obligated to fix the heat problem). Since these contracts are quite widespread and well-known, and legislatures have not declared them illegal, it is safe to conclude that there is no public policy being violated. So even if a sympathetic judge were to rule in your favor, it would be overruled on appeal. If the warranty company delayed processing your request in order to get you to blink and break the terms of the contract, that could be held to be a bad-faith dealing. It is more likely that it is just a very slow process, slower than the average HVAC contractor, who would buy full-price replacements and have many workers on call to address your needs.
It says it's an "MP4 player" but it doesn't play MP4s. This seems rather straightforward to me---assuming it really doesn't play any kind of MP4 at all. I would agree you could go back to the shop armed with the appropriate wording from the SoG Act and state your case to the manager. If the front desk staff are unhelpful don't argue with them but rather ask to speak to the duty manager. No doubt the staff will talk about their thirty day return policy, but you are not interested in this; since you are relying on your statutory rights. If that is not successful, write directly to the head office. Keep your letter short, neutral and with no emotion whatsoever. Describe the facts, include proof of purchase, and request your money back. Argos is a large shop, they will pay you off ("as a gesture of good will") rather than fight a pointless claim in the SCC. However taking an action to the SCC is not necessarily free so you might yourselves not feel it worth it.
As you say, the roommate who was there "did not equate the sound of a running toilet with wasting water". That, I am afraid to say, is negligent: normally, when you hear constantly flowing water, you do something about it. Somebody has to pay for the water, and assuming the water is in your name, that is you. You could yell at the roommate, but legal negligence is irrelevant to the water bill. However, if there were any resulting damage (for example to wiring or walls), that is where the question of negligence would come up: you probably would be found liable for damage to the building that resulting from letting the condition persist. But unless the fill valve broke at the tank and leaked water onto the floor (which would be clearly obvious) there won't be any damage that you are liable for. I assume that the leak developed from an old part giving out. This would be normal wear and tear, for which you would not be responsible (assuming you didn't cause the problem, for example by putting concentrated bleach in the tank). You you are saying that the landlord is trying to charge you for the repairs, and on this point, the landlord is on thin ice. A landlord cannot just make up rules about assigning liability for damage: that is a matter to be determined by the courts. A tenant can do things to a fill valve that can cause a leak; and the seal has to be replaced every few years. The tenant is not liable especially for routine replacement of the fill value seal, and does not become liable because they failed to inform the landlord in a prescribed manner. Not reporting a leak within 24 hours does not contribute to the underlying failed part. You could probably contest the legality of that bit of maintenance clause 24, in that the landlord cannot unilaterally declare who is responsible for damage. At the trial, both sides will present relevant evidence, and the judge / jury will decide whether the tenant's negligence caused the seal to fail.
Your first line of defense against liability arising from the rental insurance is property insurance. Your next is the fact that a suit against arising from ownership can only be brought against the LLC, although this works only if you don't personally participate in the conduct that gives rise to the liability. For example, if the LLC hires a gas line repairman and he screws it up and the renters suffocate and die as a result, you probably don't have personal liability (assuming no other negligent acts on your part). But, if you did the gas line work yourself and you screw it up, then you would have personal liability, notwithstanding the existence of the LLC. The best way to avoid personal liability for LLC acts is to vest management of the rental property owned by the LLC entirely in a property management company that enters into a contract to manage the property with the LLC rather than you personally, so that you have no involvement with anything that could give rise to liability. (You could also put a waiver of liability for mere negligence into the lease, but that wouldn't remove contractual or intentional or grossly negligent tort liability exposure.) In cases where liability in excess of insurance coverage is limited to the LLC, then having an LLC with fewer assets is preferable to having an LLC with more assets, so paying off debt on the house rather than the rental first could advance the cause of asset protection. But, the allocation of equity between the rental unit owned by the LLC and your home wouldn't make much of a difference in terms of liability to creditors unrelated to the rental property (e.g. you personally guarantee a business debt that goes bad, or get in a car accident), unless the equity in the home is protected by a homestead exemption in your jurisdiction. Creditors couldn't necessarily get to the rental unit itself, but they could impose a "charging order" on the LLC that owns it, forbidding it from making distributions to you that aren't paid to the creditor instead, which would make it impossible for you to access the equity and rental income you planned on using to support yourself in your retirement. Also, if you took so much equity out of the rental property LLC that the LLC was left insolvent or unable to pay its reasonably foreseeable debts (i.e. undercapitalized), then LLC creditors would probably be able to either recover from you because the removal of equity constituted a "fraudulent transfer" or under a "piercing the corporate veil" theory.
Yes, they seem to have broken the law. In California, notice must be given for an eviction. This can be a 30/60/90 day notice with no reason needed (typically because the landlord wants the property for something else) or a 3 day notice with cause- the most typical being not paying the rent. Note that COVID exceptions exist, though I don't believe they apply to you. Even after that time, a landlord cannot physically remove a tenant or attempt to drive them out through the destruction/removal of property, locking them out, or cutting off utilities. They are liable for damages suffered as well as penalties. There are lawful procedures in place for this. The removal and destruction of your belongings could constitute either larceny or vandalism. Either way, by unlawfully removing your possessions, they are liable for the damages caused.
Does (Customer) have any claim or recourse against (Store)? No. The store's conduct altogether preempts a finding of unconscionable tactics. The store's conduct would not be found in violation of Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA). See ORS 646.605(9) et seq. (I am not verifying the multitude of cross-references in the UTPA, but the language of explicit items gives a general idea of what types of conduct the statute sanctions) The store's decision to decline orders, preorders or money for the product impliedly alerts customers not to grow premature expectations on acquiring the product. Also the store's disclaimer of out of stock weakens a customer's possible allegation that customer relied on a promise of availability of the product. Accordingly, the store prevents a customer from credibly arguing that he incurred losses as a result of the store's conduct. Does it matter if (Product) was available in other stores or just never produced at all? Does it matter if other stores have (Product) but charge more than $N? No. The fact that the store [unsuccessfully] attempted to get stock indicates that the shortage --and hence the failure to supply the product-- is not willful. This implies that the matter is not actionable even if the customer &quot;suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property&quot;. See ORS 646.605(10) and .638. That being said, it is noteworthy 646.683(8)(a) lowers the requirement of willfulness [of violation] to one of recklessness in the context of class actions.
There are some consequences for you, under the Seattle Residential Code. Per R103.5 Any person violating or failing to comply with the provisions of this code shall be subject to a cumulative civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $500 per day for each violation from the date the violation occurs or begins until compliance is achieved. $182,500 per year. Also under R103.4, Whenever any building or structure is being occupied contrary to the provisions of this code, the building official may order such occupancy discontinued and the building or structure, or portion thereof, vacated by notice. There should be a notation on your panel indicating permit number and approval, but if you have the permit number, you can check if the inspection was done and the work was approved (I think this will report status). The legal burden of assuring that the work was done correctly and paperwork is in order ultimately falls on the owner, though the city at least initially talks to the contractor. Insofar as a customer taking a picture doesn't count as an actual final inspection, I suspect that some cost- and time-saving short-cuts were taken. Following up on the new information about being a tenant, the primary legal question is whether you have a duty of care towards the landlord, since in engaging this company, the landlord's interest may be put at risk. The landlord may have protected his interest via a clause in the lease saying &quot;you must get written permission to modify the property, and you assume full liability for resulting damages&quot;, so first thing to check is what the lease says (perhaps look for a &quot;Tenant's duty of care&quot; clause). In lieu of clear evidence that you caused damage to the owner (economic damage, by negligence w.r.t. his need to have proper permits and the whopping fines that follow), I don't see what the risk to you would be in just washing your hands of the problem.
Even without a warranty, if they were negligent in the way that they bought, inspected, stored, and offered you fuel, then they owe you for any damages that happened as a result unless you absolved them of liability in some agreement that you had with them. What did the email that mentioned "warranty" say?