#condition precedent

[artsekey]

It really does look like pivoting to Harris has thrown the Republican party for a loop. She's speaking clearly, concisely, and with wit; if she were to be put in the ring with Trump, it would be a knockout if only because she's coherent.

I'm voting blue regardless, but I've started to feel like I've moved from voting for the 'least bad' option to someone I might actually be more passionate in supporting.

[blood-starved-beast]

A lot of mariadeline fics have Adeline be the one to die first. Which yeah, makes sense that Maria would kill herself after major tether to this Earth perishes. But consider!! The tragedy of Maria killing herself before Adeline dies.

Lady Maria always prioritizes herself (and how own issues/faults) to the detriment to her understanding of others. I'd argue this is why she never notices Gehrman's mania despite it being pretty obvious (I doubt the Doll was the first time he pulled such an act.) I wouldn't be surprised, therefore, that she in her overwhelming guilt and shame over her own actions, she forgets the connections she does have on Earth and the people who would miss her when she's gone.

Idk, this was inspired by how in the Hunter's Nightmare, when you first encounter Saint Adeline she asks if you were Maria, but climbing the Clocktower Maria is currently dead (until she is Not). More likely, the fics are right but again, it's a fun tragic fanfic concept to explore.

[ithoughtiwasthegayone]

just bc a trans person does something bad doesn't mean you get to misgender them

[widowshill]

65 / 62 / 71

[alientitty]

fr once u know the difference between idealism and materialism (in philosophy) ur entire world opens

[system-of-a-feather]

Hey, by the way, its never your business to ask the partner of someone with disabilities about if / when / how they were doing returning back to a non-disabled life style.

Don't care if you are family, you aren't entitled to know that assuming the basis of the inquiry was not inherently rude and ableist in the first place

[latestnews69]

Dartitis: The condition where you try to throw a dart - but can't

Read more click here

[seemabhatnagar]

A Story of Legal Battles and Marital Discord

The Beginning:

Sudeep Chatterjee and his wife were on the verge of divorce. The once-loving relationship had deteriorated into a conflict marked by distrust and discord. Amidst this turmoil, Sudeep was confronted with a complaint filed by his wife, accusing him of cruelty and demanding dowry. Fearing imminent arrest, he sought pre-arrest bail from the court. His pre-arrest bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Katihar.

Sudip Chatterjee v. The State of Bihar and Another

Crl Appeal 2011/2024

Before The Supreme Court of India

Heard by the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice C T Ravikumar J & Hon'ble Mr.Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra J

High Court's Improbable Condition:

Sudeep's quest for bail led him to the High Court, which granted him provisional pre-arrest bail but with conditions that seemed almost impossible to fulfill. The court required Sudeep to file a joint affidavit with his wife, stating their agreement to live together and his commitment to take care of all her physical and financial needs. Additionally, the court mandated that there should be no interference from Sudeep's family members. This arrangement was to last for only four weeks, after which the couple was expected to withdraw the divorce case.

"How is this possible when there is matrimonial discord?" the condition seemed impractical and improbable, given the existing strain in their relationship. It felt like an imposition that could further sour their already fragile relationship.

A Husband's Struggle:

Sudeep was caught in a dilemma. On one hand, he wanted to avoid arrest; on the other, the conditions set by the High Court appeared to dominate him and undermine his sense of fairness. The conditions suggested a forced reunion, which seemed unlikely to heal the deep-seated issues between him and his wife.

Moreover, the conditions risked giving his wife a sense of dominance, further complicating the possibility of reconciliation. Sudeep and his wife had shown a mild willingness to rethink their relationship, but these unrealistic conditions threatened to extinguish any remaining hope of a reunion.

Supreme Court's Intervention:

Realizing the impracticality of the High Court's conditions, Sudeep approached the Supreme Court by way of Criminal Apeal. The apex court granted leave to hear the case.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar J, presiding over the case, noted a fundamental legal principle: 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia' – the law does not compel a person to do what they cannot possibly perform. The Supreme Court emphasized that conditions for bail should not be so burdensome that they effectively deny the relief sought.

The Final Judgment:

After careful consideration, the Supreme Court set aside the impractical conditions imposed by the High Court. The court recognized that expecting a couple on the brink of divorce to live together harmoniously under such constraints was unrealistic and counterproductive.

The Supreme Court made the provisional bail granted by the High Court absolute, subject to standard conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Meaning thereby that Sudeep could avoid arrest without the undue burden of improbable conditions, allowing the legal process to proceed fairly.

Seema Bhatnagar

[artemisbarnowl]

Im autistic and im a fucking human. Having you say "being autistic makes me inhuman" is ridiculously rude, and makes it clear you have some growth and acceptance to do in regards to the big old spectrum of the human experience. Yeah yeah slippery slope argument yeah but where does this end? If people feel othered and say "oh its because the human experience is the perfect blonde ablebodied white one so i must be something else" that runs directly counter to the idea that diversity and inclusion are GOOD and NECESSARY for society.

You say its your identity and it doesnt affect others but you've just gone on a public platform to say "i dont think im human because i have autism" which normalises every idiot under the sun continuing to say we're weird freaks, aliens, changelings, inhuman. Take a fucking day off from blaming neurodivergence and making all our lives worse when you could either do actual work in improving the lives of autistic people by advocating for our inclusion and access to all parts of society, or just say you're going through some miserable stuff and you need everyone else to dehumanise you so you never have to think about how to get better and accept yourself.

Also having autism doesnt make you queer! It just means you have autism. Which, like being gay or bi, is just a normal way to be a whole human person. UNLIKE being gay or bi, no one has been calling you a dyke or a queer for acting strangly, theyve been using other different derogatory terms like retard. Feel free to attempt to reclaim that instead i guess but really can we stop with "everyone who is marginalised in any way shape or form is part of the lgbt+ unbrella/queer". That too, runs directly counter to the idea that diversity and inclusion are GOOD and NECESSARY.

i fucking HATE when people have a moral objection to it/its pronouns and refuse to use them based on principle

"oh but it's dehumanizing!" THATS THE POINT. that's literally the fucking point. i personally use it/its pronouns because as a neurodivergent person i feel a disconnect to other neurotypical people. i don't feel quite human, and not in a bad way, just in a "im not quite human" way. some people straight up just don't identify as human, and thats fine too. it's their business.

"it makes me uncomfortable" ok. and?? that's not my problem. if my queer identity - that does not fucking affect you - makes you uncomfortable; that's a YOU problem. can you imagine if we gave every transphobe a pass on misgendering because using the correct pronouns "made them uncomfortable"?? i see a lot of fellow queer folk using this excuse to not use it/its pronouns as if its not the exact same talking points used by bigots.

not everything that makes you uncomfortable is automatically evil and bad. i feel uncomfortable wearing lots of colour, does that make it morally bad for other people who do like colourful clothes to wear what they like? no! that would be insane. people are gonna do stuff that personally makes you uncomfortable, that doesn't make it automatically bad. if someone peacefully existing and using it/its pronouns makes you uncomfortable then that seems like something you have to work on to get over, because people are not gonna stop existing in the way they feel most comfortable with just because you dont like it.

TLDR; get over yourself. you are not the center of the universe and someone else using it/its pronouns DOES NOT AFFECT YOU.

[lesbianlenas]

isn’t contracts the easiest law?

do you agree to this contract, yes or no? if yes they have to follow the agreement if no then they don’t

it is so much more than that….first of all there has to be a valid offer which has to be inducing the other party into acceptance such that they know if they accept it forms a contract. but they can revoke the offer at any point until acceptance unless there is an option contract made where they promise not to revoke offer until a certain time. then there needs to be proper acceptance which cannot include material alteration to the terms in which case it is a rejection and counteroffer that the offeror now has to accept or can reject. but if it is a valid acceptance there also needs to be consideration which is a bargained for exchange meaning that each party has to be inducing the other to do smth in return for what they want. so if there if there is no consideration there can’t be an enforceable contract like if it is a gift or there is nominal consideration. and then there is the issue of illusory promises where one party is saying that i’ll do my side if i feel like it which is not a valid contract either. but if there is no consideration then there can still maybe be damages if one party relied on the promise through promissory estoppel. and then we have to consider the statute of frauds which says all contracts over $500 or for land or that will take longer than 1 year have to have some sort of proof in writing that is signed or they aren’t enforceable. and THEN there is the issue of parole evidence and if it can be used to supplement the contract which depends on if it is fully integrated partially integrated or not integrated at all. and then if the terms are contradictory or not w the terms in the contract. and then how do you decide what additional terms or contradictory terms are used if the parties have different terms? then you have to look at UCC § 2-207 and if it is a merchant and a consumer additional terms don’t count but for two merchants they do count UNLESS!!!! they are a material alteration (an unreasonable surprise which we couldn’t assume the party would agree to) of the contract in which case the only accepted terms are the ones the parties agreed on. but that’s not even getting into misunderstandings abt the definitions of the terms where if the two parties have different subjective meanings then the court has to determine either if one party knew the subjective meaning the other had or if they were entirely different meanings then there is no agreement at all. and the. there is also the issue of precontractual negotiations where if a party breaches before the contract is made can there be damages still? perhaps the parties formed a contract to make a contract or the terms in the contract are so definite as to imply the parties intended to be bound already. and then there is anticipatory repudiation where a party might indicate they’re going to breach and the other party sues them before they even breach the contract and the specific way to do that and specific performance as remedy for smth so unique you can’t reasonable get it elsewhere but you can’t do that for service contracts you can only get an injunction to stop them from giving services elsewhere and then there is reliance where the breaching party has to pay back to other any benefit they incurred from contract and expectancy damages which are the normal damages which puts non breaching party in position they would have been if contract was kept and this is the cap on damages so they can’t be any higher than this and there is a certainty limit on damages and foreseeability limit and you also have to mitigate the damages and do i even need to get into defenses for breach of contract have u heard enough 😭 i wrote all this off the top of my head ok. i am in hell.

[txttletale]

What I don't get is that other your support of AI image generation, you're SO smart and well read and concerned with ethics. I genuinely looked up to you! So, what, ethics for everyone except for artists, or what? Is animation (my industry, so maybe I care more than the average person) too juvenile and simplistic a medium for you to care about its extinction at the hands of CEOs endorsing AI? This might sound juvenile too, but I'm kinda devastated, because I genuinely thought you were cool. You're either with artists or against us imho, on an issue as large as this, when already the layoffs in the industry are insurmountable for many, despite ongoing attempts to unionize. That user called someone a fascist for pointing this out, too. I guess both of you feel that way about those of us involved in class action lawsuits against AI image generation software.

i can't speak for anyone else or the things they've said or think of anyone. that said:

1. you should not look up to people on the computer. i'm just a girl running a silly little blog.

2. i am an artist across multiple mediums. the 'no true scotsman' bit where 'artists' are people who agree with you and you can discount anyone disagrees with you as 'not an artist' and therefore fundamentally unsympathetic to artists will make it very difficult to actually engage in substantive discussion.

3. i've stated my positions on this many times but i'll do it one more: i support unionization and industrial action. i support working class artists extracting safeguards from their employers against their immiseration by the introduction of AI technology into the work flow (i just made a post about this funnily enough). i think it is Bad for studio execs or publishers or whoever to replace artists with LLMs. However,

4. this is not a unique feature of AI or a unique evil built into the technology. this is just the nature of any technological advance under capitalism, that it will be used to increase productivity, which will push people out of work and use the increased competition for jobs to leverage that precarity into lower wages and worse conditions. the solution to this is not to oppose all advances in technology forever--the solution is to change the economic system under which technologies are leveraged for profit instead of general wellbeing.

5. this all said anyone involved in a class action lawsuit over AI is an enemy of art and everything i value in the world, because these lawsuits are all founded in ridiculous copyright claims that, if legitimated in court, would be cataclysmic for all transformative art--a victory for any of these spurious boondoggles would set a precedent that the bar for '''infringement''' is met by a process that is orders of magnitude less derivative than collage, sampling, found art, cut-ups, and even simple homage and reference. whatever windmills they think they are going to defeat, these people are crusading for the biggest expansion of copyright regime since mickey mouse and anyone who cares at all about art and creativity flourishing should hope they fail.

[widowshill]

78 / 96

[deancasforcutie]

#and some people blame the writers! *scoffs* #even after reading these #y'all... if multiple writers put this type of stuff in their scripts and it routinely got taken out or softened... why do you blame them?! #the words aren't appearing there by magic! #the writers are -wait for it- writing them. #if after the studio and network give their own passes to the script those words are changed or missing -- GUESS WHOSE FAULT IT IS #hint: not the writers (via @ironworked)

spn scripts make me sick bc wdym dean was supposed to say "i love you" in the crypt scene??? wdym cas was supposed to go to his own personal heaven that was full of pictures of dean?? wdym dean spread cas' ashes in a field by a windmill bc he thought cas would have liked it?? wdym dean was supposed to tell cas "i wanted you to stay" in his purgatory prayer?? wdym that while dean was worrying about them dying cas was thinking about how beautiful dean was??? wdym sam was supposed to mention cas while dean was dying???? i am physically unwell.

[recreation-law]

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Meech (D. Minn. 2023)

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Meech (D. Minn. 2023) SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TROY MEECH; PEGGY MEECH; and SCOTT SELLERS, Defendants. No. 22-CV-0454 (PJS/LIB) United States District Court, D. Minnesota April 25, 2023 Alexander V. Tibor and Kurt M. Zitzer, MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P., for plaintiff. Troy Meech and Peggy Meech, defendants pro se. ORDER PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, CHIEF…

[valtsv]

this is definitely an intersection of my aromanticism and my pedantic nature, but i do enjoy it so much when it's emphasised that it wasn't (usually romantic) love that "fixed" someone or made them "complete", nor was it love that they were missing, but instead comfort, or safety, or a sense of purpose, or simply an opportunity to stop and rest for a while. when far more basic, animal desires take precedence, and are acknowledged to be no less meaningful or worthwhile to pursue. and perhaps love was there, and perhaps it helped to facilitate their fulfilment, but it was never a necessary condition, and its recipients wouldn't have been any less deserving of having their needs met if they weren't loved.

[ventique18]

Grim: "Oh! If it ain't Sebek and Silver! You're back!"

The two explain that they've healed within a week of the incident, but it was just that test were run so many times on them that it took them so long.

Yuu: "Your hair is back to silver!"

Because Lilia's back, the blessing returned too!

"We haven't seen Lord Malleus yet..."

Silver shares that while he'd had a video call with Lilia and he's all fine and dandy, he hasn't caught peep of Malleus yet.

And then... the first years all came to Ramshackle!

Yuu: "Why is everyone here?"

Deuce: "We're glad to see Silver-senpai and Sebek. Just now, this was posted in the cafeteria..."

"MALLEUS DRACONIA REINSTATED!!"

Yuu: "Hornton really is coming back to the College?"

Sebek: "Malleus-sama is... returning? Really?"

So apparently, Sage Island held a parent teacher meeting to determine if Malleus, despite being branded as a natural-class disaster, should be reinstated to school. Malleus was not charged with a crime because he was categorized as a "natural world class disaster"; a force of nature that nobody could've seen coming.

So what do people normally do with a disaster? They aren't locked up; measures are just made to prevent it from damaging anymore. So Malleus was allowed to come back to school with the condition that his stay will be strictly regulated.

Malleus was also lucky, because apparently he had a precedent. 2000 years ago, there was a great wizard and his disciple. One day the disciple tried a great magic and put the island in disastrous state, but instead of cutting ties with the disciple, he let him off with just a lesson. Apparently the people of Sage Island wanted to follow that great wizard's footsteps and showed mercy to Malleus. For as long as he feels remorse and genuinely wants to learn to be better, then he deserves another chance.

Ace: "No, everyone's hearts is just too vast!"

... Or so he thought, but he gave it another thought and decided that he was sure other major incidents like this happened in the past already, so he can't really fault Malleus for fucking up like that.

Sebek: "WAKA-SAMA!!! CONGRATULATIONS!!!!"

WHY IS HE CRYING?>!!! LMFAOOO

Silver: "... I don't know how to properly thank you... Everyone, thank you, really."