Is there a burden of proof of a force majeure event occurring? I have a contract with an equipment hosting company that contains a 'Force Majeure' clause. I was informed a few weeks ago that this clause was activated due to a blown transformer caused by unusually warm weather forcing my hosted equipment to go offline for an extended period while the company moved my equipment to a new facility. My question is whether the use of this clause in this event carries some burden of proof with it. I have no idea if the weather caused some kind of misfortune. Does this company have to prove this to my satisfaction?
If you dispute the assertion, yes At this point the company has made an unevidenced assertion. You can either accept that assertion or dispute it. The exact dispute resolution terms will matter if you do dispute it but, notwithstanding, they will all necessitate that each party provide some evidence to support their position. That will either convince the decision maker (you in a negotiation or mediation; someone else in an arbitration or court) or it won’t. In a determinative forum like an arbitration or court since they are relying on the assertion, they have the burden of proving it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, they would have to prove the transformer failed, that it failed because of the weather and that that event falls within the scope of the specific force majeure clause.
can it be construed as a violation of 66F clause 2 if we try to circumvent the rate limit even though the information is on public domain? No, unless the element of intent to threaten [...] or strike terror can be proved. I'm assuming that by &quot;clause 2&quot; you mean the excerpt you posted. Although circumventing the limit of API calls sounds in &quot;exceeding authorised access&quot; and might even lead to DOS, it does not imply an intent to threaten the security/sovereignty/etc. or strike terror. The statute is premised on such intent. The fact that the information(packets) is(are) on public domain is irrelevant. For instance, an intent to strike terror and/or actually causing a DOS can involve [targeting] a public domain.
It may be illegal under product labelling regulations that apply to that kind of product (or under a general deceptive trade practices act), but even then, only if you are interpreting the numbers, whose meaning is not clearly spelled out, correctly. But, to be actionable as fraud it must, among other things, be a misrepresentation as to a material fact (which if the goods, such as cordless drills, are not perishable it probably isn't) and the recipient of the misrepresentation must have justifiably relied upon the misrepresentation (which is necessary not true in the case of a representation that it was made in December 2018 on a product sold no later than July of 2018). It is also not entirely clear that this is a "made on" date. It could refer, for example, to the the twelfth batch or lot or shipment of products made in 2018, and not to the month of December, or it could refer to a product made in 2018 at factory number 12. @NateEldredge in the comments also makes the plausible observation that it could be a week number which is a common system in manufacturing which would put it in a more reasonable March 2018 time frame. You probably shouldn't do anything, because you haven't been harmed by this cryptic string of numbers embossed on the product, and even if you were, your damages would not be worth the time or money involved to pursue it as anything other than part of a class action lawsuit.
Possibly In most contracts, the parties sign in their capacity as people (or agents for other people). However, some contracts are signed in the capacity as the owner of a piece of land and the contract transfers with the land. The liability rests with the current owner and, if unpaid, creates a lien over the property. These are particularly common in contracts with utilities or where the contract involves the a structure on the land. Surprise, surprise, the situation you describe involves both. You need to refer back to your contract for the land as these types of contracts are usually disclosed (unless they are a function of local law because everyone just knows - I don't know anything about Pa. law on this) and the original contract with the gas company. Your settlement may have also involved you paying a figure to purchase the gas in the tank as at the date of settlement. For example, in new-south-wales, council rates and water rates attach to the land as a matter of law and the vendor pays the purchaser for any amount they have paid in advance (or vice-versa if they are in arrears). Electricity and piped gas don't; the vendor ends their account on or before settlement and the buyer opens a new account on or after settlement and each pays for their own use. Propane for portable bottles doesn't but for fixed installations does as a matter of contract with the gas company.
On what grounds would you sue? Contract Well, I think that you would struggle to find the necessary elements (see What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid?) In particular, you would struggle to prove that there was intention to create legal relations on their part and possibly on yours. Are you able to identify in your "back &amp; forth" a clear, unequivocal offer and acceptance? Without knowing the details of the "back &amp; forth": I was hoping that someone at $organization might be willing to write an article explaining what you do, the history of the organization and how it works appears on the face of it to be a request for a gift; not an offer to treat. Promissory Estoppel If you don't have a contract then it is possible (IMO unlikely) that they induced you by your actions to commit resources (your time in writing) in anticipation of a reward (them publishing what you wrote). To be estopped they would have to have known that you were writing the article in the expectation that it would have your organisation's name in it, that they did not intend for that to happen and that they allowed you to invest those resources notwithstanding. If you can prove all of that then you can require them to do what they promised. The big difficulty I see in this is did you tell them that a) you were writing the article, b) it would have your name in it and c) you expected it to be published in that form. Copyright If they publish the work or a derivative work without your permission you can sue for breach of copyright. As it stands, they probably have an implied licence to publish and you would need to explicitly revoke that. Options There are two reasons to go to court: Money Principle If you are going to court for money then this is at best a risky investment and at worst a gamble: balance your risk and reward carefully. If you are going to court for a principle then I simultaneously admire your principles and think you're an idiot. Make a deal Explain that the reason that you wrote the article was a) to support their fine publication and the fantastic work it does (even if you don't) and b) to garner good publicity for your organisation. You understand and admire their strong editorial stance (especially if you don't) but the article involved a considerable amount of work and could they see their way clear to give you a significant discount (~80%) on a full page ad facing the article.
I am not knowledgeable about UK law, but since almost everywhere in the U.S. employment is at-will by default, in all three scenarios Company B is entitled to terminate the employee very easily. The assumption that the employee was accurately found guilty of harassment elsewhere precludes more interesting analyses where matters such as defamation and public policy are involved. If the contract between the employee and Company B establishes that termination will be for good cause, the employee has only a mild chance of not being terminated for what he did in Company A. However, I say "mild chance" because in most cases Company B can reasonably argue that it seeks to protect its other employees and/or customers from the possibility that the employee's misconduct may occur in the current workplace. A very detailed analysis of the factual circumstances might be required for discerning whether Company B's decision to terminate the employee is merited. Additionally, in cases where The Employee is a publicly visible figure and a figure of authority having a management role there could be a concern that the employee's misconduct elsewhere may harm the image of Company B.
I am not a Canadian lawyer, but here is the text of the Canada Criminal Code (R.S., c. C-34, s. 27) that appears to deal with justifiable force: Use of force to prevent commission of offence 27 Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary (a) to prevent the commission of an offence (i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and (ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or (b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a). So, for your hypotheticals: under the letter of the law, you would be able to use force to stop someone from kicking your car or your laptop, so long as the kicking was forceful enough to &quot;cause immediate and serious injury&quot; to said car or laptop. You would also be justified in using force to stop one person from attacking another on the street. You might not, however, be justified in using force to remove someone from your property unless you had a reasonable belief that the person was going to start smashing up your living room. If they came in and plopped themselves down on your couch and refused to move, I don't believe that you would be justified in using force to remove them. The big wrinkle is, of course, that you are only allowed under the law to use &quot;as much force is reasonably necessary&quot; to stop something that might be thought, on &quot;reasonable grounds&quot;, to incur a &quot;serious injury&quot;. (If the guy kicks a few dents in your car, does that constitute a &quot;serious injury&quot;?) Lawyers get paid the big bucks to argue about whether each one of those phrases in quotes was in play in any particular situation.
Does this still count as consideration, even though there was never any possibility of B getting anything out of it? Yes. The sole fact that the promisee and the beneficiary are different and unrelated entities does not invalidate a contract. In terms of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts at § 302(1)(b), what matters is that "the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance".