View Full Version : The Park Harvey Stole my Deposit!



Pages : [1] 2

OKCMallen
06-10-2008, 04:26 PM
Well, I'm not much for drama, but I promised the staff at the Park Harvey and Gardner Tenenbaum that I would be telling my story to as many people as I could if they would not work with me, so here it is.

I currently live in the Classen Tower. It's been great, the staff has been great, and I basically have zero complaints other than the sirens at night (and that's no one's fault). I was looking to move out, as my roommate is getting married, and I looked into the Park Harvey due to its location and my positive experience with the Classen.

After looking at several places and visiting the PH multiple times, I sat down with a leasing agent at the PH to talk about prices and application. I was told verbally that the $50 "administrative fee" was non-refundable, but the $150 "deposit" was refundable. This seemed off to me, and I was not yet comfortable giving a deposit as I was only about 80% sure about wanting to live there. However, after I was once again verbally assured that the deposit was refundable if I gave early enough notice of my change of heart. I believe her exact words were "as long as you don't wait until, like, right before you're supposed to move in to tell us." Due to this false misrepresentation, we zoom through the paperwork so I can get back to the office (I bet you can see where this is going now...)

That was on 5/6/08. My move-in date was set at June 27th. (Relevant info- they offer to hold apartments for free for "30-45 days" without a deposit anyway!) I had not yet signed any lease. On May 14th (barely a week later, and approx. 6 weeks before move-in), I requested my deposit back, minus the $50 administrative fee that I was told was non-refundable.

I was denied this request. I asked why, and they stated the form said it was not refundable in this manner. Well, the form does indeed say this. I tell them- hey, I was lied to by your leasing agent, I think I deserve at least a portion, if not all of my deposit back. We go back and forth for a bit, and then I demand that if I don't get my deposit back that I should receive the value for which it was given (namely- hold that apartment open and NOT leased until my move-in date in case I decide to take it). They will NOT confirm that they will hold the apartment open, nor will they offer any portion of the deposit back. She then proceeds to ignore my emails.

These discussions were with the building manager (no need to name names). I acquire her boss's name and email, and put a call into him. I inform the building manager that I have done so and THEN she responds to my email (of course). She finally claims she doesn't have the authority to refund my deposit...which is probably a lie, but I don't know that for sure, so I just tell her that's fine and I'll be taking it up with her supervisor.

So, enter supervisor- I email him ALL the email threads that have been created. He says he's going to fax me a copy of the applicaiton, but I tell him I am sure that he is correct and that it says it's not reundable in that manner, but that the point is I was fraudulently induced into signing the application and giving the deposit in an unlawful manner (which is true). I never receive the fax (he might have sent it, who knows). I email him again today, asking for his attention to this matter, and he faxes the copy of the application, which I receive. I email him saying that- I already agreed with you that it says what it says; the problem is that I was lied to in signing it. I further explained that what happened was unlawful, and you can't play "gotcha" with contracts by lying to induce someone to sign it. He responds with "I talked to XXX and YYY (the leasing agent that lied to me and also the building manager) and found no evidence of a misrepresentation."

Well, of course that's a little offensive to imply I am lying over $150. Honestly, I don't need the money. It's just that I was lied to and these apartment towers and complexes always play hide the ball with deposits. I have been a good tenant with rent on-time, every time with their company at the Classen for over 7 months, but apparently that holds no water with them. They won't even agree to hold my apartment open and unleased at this point. I have told them that what is happening is fraudulent, and could carry a remedy of punitive damages should I decide to press my case. Obviously, it's not worth the time so much, but they should realize the positions they have created.

So, said all that to say this: not that you didn't already know that apartment management is often money-grubbing and shady when it comes to deposits, but the Park Harvey's staff is at LEAST incompetent in relations, maybe just DISHONEST to a degree, and possibly as bad as COMPLETELY IMMORAL and UNALWFUL when it comes to the acquisition of deposits and your name on the bottom line.

If you have any questions, feel free to respond in this thread or to PM me.

jbrown84
06-10-2008, 04:47 PM
Strange. I live there and have found the staff to be nothing but great.

Sounds very out of character for them.

betts
06-10-2008, 04:51 PM
It seems like a rather small amount of money they are withholding, when it can generate ill will and negative publicity. I think it's just good business to give a refund in the above situation.

Kerry
06-10-2008, 05:00 PM
OKCMallen - the horror stories of deposits and apartments are as numerous as oxygen. The best thing to do is chalk it up to experience and move on. When we moved out of an apartment in Jacksonville they had a maintenance guy do the final walk-thru and he found a scratch on the counter top that was there the day we moved in. I was told not to worry about it at move-in only to be stuck with a $75 repair bill on the way out.

I tried to contact the previous residents to see if they paid for the rapair also but they would return any phone calls. I even tried to talk with the people that leased the apartment after us to see if the repair was made but couldn't reach them either. I talked with the leasing agent, the manager, the district manager, the regional supervisor and I got the same story from all of them. It isn't worth the trouble - try to move on.

OKCMallen
06-10-2008, 05:08 PM
You know, I would settle just for a pro-rated amount. If they already leased that apartment, that would be a major legal problem for them, one I am not entirely unmotivated to realize for them.

Chicken In The Rough
06-10-2008, 05:35 PM
I would steer clear of all Gardner Tenenbaum properties. I have had serious problems with them in the past and I know of others who have also had problems. It's too bad they do business the way they do. They could have been such a positive force for the city. Instead, they are just a bunch of creeps in my opinion.

The best way to prevent mistreatment from Gardner Tenenbaum is to stay completely away from them!

OKCMallen
06-10-2008, 05:50 PM
Man, you know, I've really liked the Classen, I am a little surprised to ehar that GTG is generally perceived this way.

so1rfan
06-11-2008, 06:39 AM
I love his radio show, he must have fallen on hard times to steal your deposit....

Maybe some day we will learn the rest of the story.

Good day.

metro
06-11-2008, 07:23 AM
I've heard stories about GTG. Wasn't too impressed with his son either who was plastered at the Classen Tower open house and was pretty rude at the Park Harvey open house.

Toadrax
06-11-2008, 10:15 AM
Deposits are easy money for them.

If you didn't get whatever was said to you in writing, you lose.

"Where does it say I get my money back?" is the question you should ask, and if it doesn't say that than it doesn't say that.. nothing else is up to discussion.

Same thing about when you move in to a place. If you didn't get the previous damage in writing or in a report, you lose and there is nothing you can do about it when you move out.

You can complain all you want, but how does anyone really know that you were told that you would get the money back? I don't know you and how do I know you wouldn't lie over $150? I'm not accusing you of lying, just saying I don't know and no one is going to invest much energy in finding out over a few bucks.

Everyone has to learn this someway, just be glad this is how you learned it. :)

PLANSIT
06-11-2008, 10:52 AM
The same exact thing happened to me. I was told that my deposit was refundable. I had an apartment on hold but decided to move to Deep Deuce. When I proceeded to get my "deposit" back she told me that is was non-refundable. I then asked her why she told me it was and replied that she had not. She also told me that I would get a membership to the health club for renting a studio. Midway through the process they changed their mind and made that only available to the one bedrooms. I wasn't happy, but have just moved on and got a new place.

OKCMallen
06-11-2008, 11:52 AM
Toadrax- I agree that that's how people seem to work, but it's not how the law works.

jsibelius
06-11-2008, 02:26 PM
I don't know...if enough people are being told their deposits are refundable, and then getting hosed on the fine print, that might be enough to take someone to court, assuming someone was mad enough to do so. Considering the size of the deposit, you might consider taking them to small claims court.

Yes, I KNOW it says in writing "x." And yes, I KNOW verbal agreement Y doesn't trump written agreement X. But think about how many times you've been sitting in a leasing office, being rushed into signing some kind of agreement by the manager and being told all kinds of things just to get you in, get you signed, and get you back out. I think you could make a case, if you were just mad enough to go after it, but just calm enough to handle it in a courtroom.

OKCMallen
06-11-2008, 02:51 PM
I don't know...if enough people are being told their deposits are refundable, and then getting hosed on the fine print, that might be enough to take someone to court, assuming someone was mad enough to do so. Considering the size of the deposit, you might consider taking them to small claims court.

Yes, I KNOW it says in writing "x." And yes, I KNOW verbal agreement Y doesn't trump written agreement X. But think about how many times you've been sitting in a leasing office, being rushed into signing some kind of agreement by the manager and being told all kinds of things just to get you in, get you signed, and get you back out. I think you could make a case, if you were just mad enough to go after it, but just calm enough to handle it in a courtroom.


Actually, the writing USUALLY trumps verbal...if the agreement NEEDS to be in writing. You can have oral modifications to a written contract if they don't fall within the statute of frauds. Tough showing, of course, but it's possible.

Toadrax
06-11-2008, 05:09 PM
But think about how many times you've been sitting in a leasing office, being rushed into signing some kind of agreement by the manager and being told all kinds of things just to get you in, get you signed, and get you back out.

No, that has actually never happened to me.

The best way to get me out of your office with the contract signed, is to present me a contact I would want to sign.

I don't think I have ever moved into a place where getting all the financial information in writing was a problem nor have I ever had a problem getting pre-existing damage to a place documented and signed off on.

I have also never had a problem getting a receipt for payments made that describe what I was paying for... Maybe if the OP had a receipt that said "$150 refundable deposit" he wouldn't be in this mess.

veritas
06-11-2008, 06:23 PM
Actually, the writing USUALLY trumps verbal...if the agreement NEEDS to be in writing. You can have oral modifications to a written contract if they don't fall within the statute of frauds. Tough showing, of course, but it's possible.

Ah for the good 'ole days of the Beta house eh OKCMallen?

:biggrin:

lpecan
06-11-2008, 09:06 PM
Key Midtowner and the parol evidence rule.

OKCMallen
06-12-2008, 07:56 AM
Haha, I was waiting on him, actually. :)

Midtowner
06-12-2008, 08:09 AM
Yeah, we law students don't tend to readily give up legal advice as it can come back and bite us on the ass come Bar application time. I may be paranoid, but I'm not a big risk taker when it comes to things like that. You'll note that I've confined my legal ramblings to matters of general commentary where I didn't think there was any chance in hell someone would do what I thought would be a good idea (e.g., the Sonics situation).

Good luck with your situation though.

Wikipedia, has become a halfway decent source for common law rules.

oscn.net is a great source for Oklahoma law.

From the way Mallen talks, he has the situation well in hand.

jsibelius
06-12-2008, 08:44 AM
No, that has actually never happened to me.

The best way to get me out of your office with the contract signed, is to present me a contact I would want to sign.

I don't think I have ever moved into a place where getting all the financial information in writing was a problem nor have I ever had a problem getting pre-existing damage to a place documented and signed off on.

I have also never had a problem getting a receipt for payments made that describe what I was paying for... Maybe if the OP had a receipt that said "$150 refundable deposit" he wouldn't be in this mess.


Getting it in writing is never a problem, but getting the leasing agent to shut up and let you read it, ah... well that's a different story. They just keep talking and trying to "explain" what it says hoping you won't actually read it. That was my point. And that has happened to me nearly every time I've had to sign a contract of any sort - leases, my mortgage paperwork, car rental contracts, whatever. I finally learned to *nicely* tell them to hush "while I read awhile." Cruises are my favorite. They don't send you the contract until you've already booked and paid, and you're leaving in a very short period of time (meaning it's already non-refundable). Of course, if you're savvy, you know you can look at the contract at any time by simply asking to see it. But they don't just hand it over until it's too late to get out of it. I just love how the snake-oil salesmen of the world just love to try to trap us into their contracts by trying to keep us from seeing the fine print. It's become sort-of my mission in life to rail about it as much as possible.


Actually, the writing USUALLY trumps verbal...if the agreement NEEDS to be in writing. You can have oral modifications to a written contract if they don't fall within the statute of frauds. Tough showing, of course, but it's possible.

Exactly my point. Usually, but it is possible to get past the writing to the verbal stuff, and I suspect for the exact reasons I stated above. Sometimes our lawmakers aren't as dumb as we make them out to be, and sometimes they really do listen when we write them letters.

OKCMallen
06-12-2008, 08:46 AM
Well, I appreciate that Toadrax is so perceptive and infallible that he would never, ever get snowed over by anyone, anywhere.

OKCMallen
06-12-2008, 09:10 AM
I must post that after conversation with the vice president of the multi-family division of the GTG, we came to a 100% fair for both parties, amicable solution. He was more than willing to work with me, regretted the situation, and took into aco**** that I had been a tenant with GTG.

Although the story above is true, I want to say that even though it took some effort to get to the right person, I was treated in a fair, friendly, and equitable way. If wasn't GTG that made this mistake, it was one leasing agent, so I want to be fair about the above post and how it all worked out positively in the end.

Toadrax
06-12-2008, 09:15 AM
I have been snowed over before. Obviously I learned how to tune out everything a salesperson told me from somewhere.

Pain is a good motivator. :)

jsibelius
06-12-2008, 10:30 AM
Good. Then I won't quote you where you said, "No, that has never happened to me." :wink:

Toadrax
06-12-2008, 08:13 PM
Good. Then I won't quote you where you said, "No, that has never happened to me." :wink:

And I won't quote where you said, "But think about how many times you've been sitting in a leasing office, being rushed into signing some kind of agreement by the manager and being told all kinds of things just to get you in, get you signed, and get you back out."

THAT has never happened to me, sorry for the misunderstanding. I got snowballed over the phone. But like I said, it is a good thing. Once you learn to ignore anything that isn't in writing, salespeople figure it out and treat you differently(they hate you).

kevinpate
06-13-2008, 07:32 AM
> If wasn't GTG that made this mistake, it was one leasing agent,

In retrospect, then perhaps your selection was not the best choice of phrase for the thread title?

OKCMallen
06-13-2008, 07:36 AM
Actually, it makes perfect sense, since it was the Park Harvey that did, not the ownership and management of GTG.

jbrown84
06-14-2008, 12:32 PM
Well he wrote the initial post before the upper GTG management cleared it up.

okctvnewsguy
06-14-2008, 07:10 PM
I would steer clear of all Gardner Tenenbaum properties. I have had serious problems with them in the past and I know of others who have also had problems. It's too bad they do business the way they do. They could have been such a positive force for the city. Instead, they are just a bunch of creeps in my opinion.

The best way to prevent mistreatment from Gardner Tenenbaum is to stay completely away from them!

I have lived in so many apartments that it would make your head spin, and I have to tell you the best landlords I have EVER rented from are Gardner Tanenbaum. They put NYC to shame, and I have NEVER had an issue with their business practices... If you pay your rent on time, and are a good resident, you will have NO issues. I would go so far as to say they are the only people I recommend renting from.

OKC Focus
06-14-2008, 09:44 PM
The fact that the lady lied to you is indeed unethical, but it is not illegal. She provided you with paperwork which explained the situation, and the paperwork is the binding contract (in other words, it's the only thing that really matters.) The fact that you rushed through the paperwork or did not read it is really up to you. Unless she literally took your hand and forced you to sign the paper before you read it, it's unfortunately on you.

A verbal contract is only as good as the paper it's written on.

OKCMallen
06-15-2008, 11:50 AM
The fact that the lady lied to you is indeed unethical, but it is not illegal. She provided you with paperwork which explained the situation, and the paperwork is the binding contract (in other words, it's the only thing that really matters.) The fact that you rushed through the paperwork or did not read it is really up to you. Unless she literally took your hand and forced you to sign the paper before you read it, it's unfortunately on you.

A verbal contract is only as good as the paper it's written on.

Well, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. You are speaking in a general practical sense, not a legal sense. What she did was, indeed, unlawful. There is a difference between the terms "illegal" and "unlawful."

OKC Focus
06-15-2008, 12:00 PM
Right; there is a difference between the two. If I'm not mistaken, it is unlawful but not illegal, which is exactly what I said if you read my post.
but it is not illegal..

The binding contract of the situation was the paperwork, not a conversation with the receptionist or whoever. Anything she "said" could be considered misrepresentation but the fact that the OP did not read the terms he/she signed for is nobody's fault but their own. If he/she tried to take any official action, chances are he/she would be laughed off, since he/she specifically signed to the terms stating that the deposit was non-refundable.

Rule of thumb: ignore what a business contact says (they're only looking to hook you to buy, not in painting a completely accurate picture); pay particular attention to what you sign.

Toadrax
06-15-2008, 02:46 PM
Technically, it is neither illegal or unlawful because there is no evidence that she said anything at all.

:P

Midtowner
06-15-2008, 03:36 PM
There are lots of people throwing around terminology in this thread without knowing what they're talking about.

Hopefully no one uses this thread for advice as to what to do in a similar situation.

Responding to just the last post, Toadrax, you might want to look up the Oklahoma Rules of Evidence and see what they have to say about "declarations against interest."

(not that that'd really be of much use [if that's all you have] to you considering the burden on the plaintiff for proving fraud).

-- and that's all I've got to say about that.

jsibelius
06-15-2008, 04:02 PM
...If he/she tried to take any official action, chances are he/she would be laughed off, since he/she specifically signed to the terms stating that the deposit was non-refundable...

I wouldn't count on that. There probably isn't enough money at stake to make it worth pursuing, but just because a person signed something doesn't mean they knew what they were signing. And just because something was verbalized and not written does not mean it cannot be proven in court. It is entirely possible for the leasing agent to have been deliberately distracting the lessee from reading the document before signing. There are circumstances that could make a legal document less than legally binding. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know sometimes you shouldn't just give up. Sometimes you should actually ask a lawyer. Sometimes you actually have a case, despite what others might have you believe.

OKCMallen
06-16-2008, 06:30 AM
The binding contract of the situation was the paperwork, not a conversation with the receptionist or whoever.

Wrong again.

This is not specifically directed at you, but why do people think what's on TV and what they hear from friends is an accurate description of the law. I'll rephrase it yet again- oral contracts are 100% enforceable. While making the proper showing in court may be difficult, that speaks to practical applications.

OKCMallen
06-16-2008, 06:31 AM
Technically, it is neither illegal or unlawful because there is no evidence that she said anything at all.

:P

It's unlawful because it's unlawful, and a sworn affidavit would be evidence.

Toadrax
06-16-2008, 07:44 AM
It is unlawful IF she lied, which hasn't been proven yet.

I had to sign a contract over something last week, I am going to think of something creative to say about the person that made me sign it.

Oh I know, I will say that she told me that I had to sign that I had READ it and that I never agreed to doing it... this sounds fun.

Midtowner
06-16-2008, 08:04 AM
Toad -- you're wrong.

You can either just admit that now or keep digging your hole. This isn't a matter of opinion type thing. You're just plain 'ol wrong.

Since you're apparently unable to look it up for yourself, assuming something like this would ever go to trial, here is the relevant rule:

40 O.S. 2801(B)


B. A statement is not hearsay if:

1. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is:

a. inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or

b. consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive and was made before the supposed fabrication, influence, or motive arose, or

c. one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or

2. The statement is offered against a party and is:

a. the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity, or

b. a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or

The statement, therefore, would be admissible against the declarant. Under (B)(1), et seq., she'd obviously be at trial, she'd lie, then the plaintiff's lawyer would be able to use the statement to impeach her.

We wouldn't even have to go there because the statement is also admissible under (B)(2)(a) since it is the party's own statement and it's being offered against her. (since the leasing agent is an agent of the leasing company, the statement is admissible against both the agent and the leasing company).

-- I'm not painting the whole picture here on purpose, I'm talking about one small, itty-bitty narrow issue, not the whole issue because I don't want anyone in the future to ever construe this thread (or at least anything I've said here) as being advice as to what to do in a similar situation. The purpose for which I am offering this information is to illustrate that you really don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Toadrax
06-16-2008, 08:19 AM
Right.. you're going to admit a statement from her that you can make say whatever you want because it wasn't written down and totally from your memory.

I'm 100% confident that a good lawyer can pull this off, that is why I am contemplating what wonderful things I can make up in the future.

Midtowner
06-16-2008, 08:31 AM
Right.. you're going to admit a statement from her that you can make say whatever you want because it wasn't written down and totally from your memory.

I'm 100% confident that a good lawyer can pull this off, that is why I am contemplating what wonderful things I can make up in the future.

That's why we have evidentiary burdens and juries.

By all means, keep digging that hole.

OKCMallen
06-16-2008, 09:07 AM
Toad, it would be my sworn affidavit that would be proffered as evidence, is what I meant. Affidavits are evidence.

Toadrax
06-16-2008, 09:23 AM
I understand that, I am just saying that you can write whatever you want in that affidavit.

Not saying that you would, just saying that as an objective third party it would be presumptuous of us to assume that she lied and that you are telling the truth just as it would be presumptuous of us to assume that you lied and that she was telling the truth.

That is why I chimed in with the distinction between something that "is" and something that "would be if".

A good lawyer can screw over anyone in court, but that has nothing to do with reality. Lawyers forget that...

OKCMallen
06-16-2008, 09:30 AM
Well Toad, then we might as well stop all court proceedings everywhere since people have the ability to lie or fabricate evidence.

Despite your cynical viewpoint, or maybe in support of it, all court proceedings a based on a pretty bug assumption- that people are generally going to tell the truth. If you can't get past that assumption, then you're never going to appreciate or respect a court.

Toadrax
06-16-2008, 09:46 AM
If you can't get past that assumption, then you're never going to appreciate or respect a court.

DING DING DING!

What do you know.. I don't appreciate or respect courts. :P

Not only can people lie or fabricate evidence, many times they are simply wrong. Sometimes we hear what we want to hear and our mind fills in missing pieces from an incomplete story to force things to make sense. This stuff is real and well documented.

Midtowner
06-16-2008, 10:08 AM
DING DING DING!

What do you know.. I don't appreciate or respect courts. :P

Not only can people lie or fabricate evidence, many times they are simply wrong. Sometimes we hear what we want to hear and our mind fills in missing pieces from an incomplete story to force things to make sense. This stuff is real and well documented.

This is why we have juries and evidentiary burdens. If the plaintiff in this case only has his sworn affidavit (and that's it) and the evidence is 50/50 that the Defendant committed fraud, then the case is probably going to get dismissed because as a matter of law, plaintiff can't meet his evidentiary burden if the affidavit is all he has.

Toadrax
06-16-2008, 10:34 AM
Now imagine if there was some way for companies to avoid this problem..

Imagine if they could somehow.. document what was talked about in a manner that all parties agreed on?

Oh I know, a written contract!

OKCMallen
06-16-2008, 11:47 AM
Now imagine if there was some way for companies to avoid this problem..

Imagine if they could somehow.. document what was talked about in a manner that all parties agreed on?

Oh I know, a written contract!


THEN imagine if one party lied about what that instrument says!!

You lost every credibility you had in this discussion as soon as you said you don't appreciate or respect courts. Well whoopty-freaking-doo for you. You can bet your ass you're lucky as can be we have these courts to protect you, whether you like them or not.

Toadrax
06-16-2008, 02:43 PM
If someone lies about what the contract says.. than look at the contract and follow that. Maybe if they had two different copies of the contract that said different things, that might be an issue that needs to be looked at.

The courts have not protected my family.. ever. We would be much better off without.

Try running a business and have to deal with this crap. What do you need to do to protect yourself? Make the customer watch a DVD video explaining the contract in deep detail, video tape them describing what the contract says, give them a standardized test to make sure they are competent enough to understand what "you don't get your money back" means? Nothing like not being able to hire a new employee cause you just blew all your money defending yourself from a false claim.

Who protects us from the courts?

I haven't seen my niece in over 4 years because of the wonderful courts and may never see her again. I'm not even accused of doing anything wrong, but my brother is. He asked for a jury trial and they denied him one, they did not let him see her for over 1000 days because it took them that long to figure out that he had the right to. Half a million in legal fees later the Judge has ordered him to admit to abusing her or he will never see his child unsupervised again. He did nothing wrong so he can not admit to abusing her so the case is not going to be dismissed.. ever.

I assure you, that we know how the courts work and I am so glad they have protected my family.

I appreciate the purpose of courts, but any system that does not take even basic measures to prevent itself from being abused is a failure. Part of doing that is to consider ways that people might abuse the system and put checks in place to prevent that.

OKCMallen
06-16-2008, 03:25 PM
What about protecting employees from employers that don't believe courts should allow them redress? if you really mean what you say you do (I don't think you do), then the courts are in place to protect us from people like you that thinks courts are pointless and no one should use them or have access to them. Also, clearly, since you're so brilliant, I can't imagine anyone ever getting the best of you...no no no. Makes me warm at night to know that Toadrax is beyond ever having someone wrong you unlawfully. Jeez, I hope no one hits you on the way home today or swindles money from your business. You'd have to go to court! Goodness!

Your argument is completely a red herring. The point here is that you don't let your employees LIE to people to get them to sign a contract. Would you need a video to explain that? I mean, your posiiton is borderline learning-impaired here- what you're saying is that anyone should be able to lie to you about what a contract says or what its effects will be, and then it's a game of "GOTCHA! You signed it, it's your fault!"? In your model, commerce would grind to a complete halt. Think it through.

I am going to say a special prayer tonight to thank God I'm not as jaded, cynical, and have so little faith in others as you. You probably hate lawyers and hate judges and hate courts...until you need one, then you'll want the best damn one you can afford and you'll be begging the court to make things right.

Chances are, your brother lost the kid for doing somehting AT LEAST a little suspect. It's not impossible, but it's certianly highly improbable that DHS just wanders around snatching children out of loving, nuturing hosueholds. We (ostensibly) protect children here in America. Once you go over the line with a kid, it's hard to prove you're innocent, and there's a good reason for that, because children as obviously very helpless. And you don't have any sort of mandated right to see your niece. Sorry, that's just not how it works. I don't have any right to demand a court that I can see my first cousin once-removed that happens to be a minor. I'm not saying courts are infallible or that they don't make mistakes. I'm just saying your opinion is uninformed, ignorant of basic law, and impracticable in the real world. Sorry for your troubles and all, but blaming someone else isn't the answer. If a false claim against your business was really that false, then countersue the crap out of them to teach them a lesson. The system works (most of the time). You think you have some sort of righteous anger now, you have no IDEA how the court system protects you on a daily basis. But you just go on enjoying that freedom from harm and theft and turn your nose up just the same like an unappreciative child. Maybe the funniest part of all this is that you're implying your opinion is more well-reasoned and wiser than, oh, the amalgation of several hundred years of the most brilliant legal minds in England and the United States....ol' Toady's got'em beat. Again, the system isn't perfect, but it works pretty well when you let it.

traxx
06-16-2008, 03:36 PM
Well, I'm not much for drama, but I promised the staff at the Park Harvey and Gardner Tenenbaum that I would be telling my story to as many people as I could if they would not work with me

Paul Harvey stole your what?:)

OKC Focus
06-16-2008, 03:40 PM
The fact is, OKC Mallen, you posted this on a forum to discuss.
The fact is, you obviously already have your mind made up, so why do you need our thoughts?

The fact is, OKC Mallen, you signed a contract without reading it through.
The fact is, that is your fault and your fault only.
The fact is, there are consequences for not reading what you sign.
The fact that you are unhappy with these facts doesn't change these facts.

CuatrodeMayo
06-16-2008, 04:05 PM
Paul Harvey stole your what?:)
Virginity.

Toadrax
06-16-2008, 04:28 PM
Jeez, I hope no one hits you on the way home today or swindles money from your business. You'd have to go to court! Goodness!

Hrm.. I have been hit by people who had no money or insurance which resulted in my car being a total loss with all of the costs absorbed by me. One time the guy was nice enough to say "My Bad" before he drove off.


Your argument is completely a red herring. The point here is that you don't let your employees LIE to people to get them to sign a contract.

How can a employer know that the employee lies? If we fired every single person that was even accused of doing such a thing, no one would have a job. We can't sit there and baby sit each employee, if we had that time we wouldn't have the need to hire people as we could just do everything ourselves. So we hire someone, and someone SAYS that they lied so we get sued?

You think employers are out there hiring people for the purpose if lying?

The idea is that the employer can put the terms into a simple to understand piece of paper, and as long as people are reading it there should be no problem?


In your model, commerce would grind to a complete halt. Think it through.

Would it be so bad for people to take responsibility for themselves? Business would ZOOM along if we didn't have to be terrified of being sued all the time.

First thing I saw when I got home today..

Glued To His Seat - June 13, 2008 (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0613081toilet1.html?ui)

Great, so what is next? Good thing we already declared our bathrooms as private(better to offer people nothing than face liability).



..until you need one, then you'll want the best damn one you can afford and you'll be begging the court to make things right.

Well, the day that a lawyer makes something right I will remember this thread, come back to it, and post how right you were.


Chances are, your brother lost the kid for doing somehting AT LEAST a little suspect.

Or maybe his ex-wife was upset that he was awarded soul custody of the child..


It's not impossible, but it's certianly highly improbable that DHS just wanders around snatching children out of loving, nuturing hosueholds.

Actually, DHS never investigated the household the child was removed from. No one from DHS or the police has even been inside that household to see what it looked like or interviewed any of the people that lived in it. No one from DHS or the police talked to anyone at the child's private school. The person accused of doing the abuse could have simply left the home while an investigation took place, but that is moot because the entire state of Oklahoma spent less than 1.5 man hours looking into it.

DHS is under no legal obligation to consider the harm that might come from removing a child from a home. Because of lawyers they have to take a "whatever it takes" approach to solving problems.


We (ostensibly) protect children here in America.
Right, we should because hurting a child is a crime. In the good days we would hold a trial and send people to prison that hurt children. If my brother really hurt her, I would be more than happy to see him rot.

Now we have a court system that gives huge power to people who are on the losing end of a custody dispute and want to get ahead. The person who makes the accusation is presumed to be telling the truth.



Once you go over the line with a kid, it's hard to prove you're innocent, and there's a good reason for that, because children as obviously very helpless.

What does going over the line mean? Does it mean committing a crime? Who decides who went over the line? Do we just leave it up to one social worker who spends 1.5 hours on the case and only heard the mother's side? I'm not making this up, I pray to God that you never find yourself in this situation because you will be stuck in it for years if the intake worker doesn't like you.



And you don't have any sort of mandated right to see your niece. Sorry, that's just not how it works.

I did, before the courts took it away. Her grandparents, her friends, and the rest of the family she knew was able to see her before our wonderful system stepped in.



The system works (most of the time). You think you have some sort of righteous anger now, you have no IDEA how the court system protects you on a daily basis.

I'm not suggesting we throw the baby out with the bathwater, but our courts need to stop being so freaking naive and get with the program. The system works great when it works, but it can really hurt people when it does not work and it seems that people who really know how to take advantage of the system win in the end.


But you just go on enjoying that freedom from harm and theft and turn your nose up just the same like an unappreciative child.

I have no problem with the system protecting us from criminals. The day that I get robbed and something stolen from me is returned in a condition besides worthless, I will also return to this thread.

But I throughly despise the courts getting involved in he said/she said situations or discussing things that can not even be proved without talking to a jury about it.

PennyQuilts
06-16-2008, 04:31 PM
A good lawyer can screw over anyone in court, but that has nothing to do with reality. Lawyers forget that...

Oh good lord.

OKCMallen - I'm very impressed at your tone in handling this.

OKCMallen
06-16-2008, 04:55 PM
The fact is, OKC Mallen, you posted this on a forum to discuss.
The fact is, you obviously already have your mind made up, so why do you need our thoughts?

The fact is, OKC Mallen, you signed a contract without reading it through.
The fact is, that is your fault and your fault only.
The fact is, there are consequences for not reading what you sign.
The fact that you are unhappy with these facts doesn't change these facts.

No, but I am getting some of my money back and feel good about GTG, and both parties walked away with the warm, fuzzy feeling of compromise, so at least there's that!

OKC Focus
06-16-2008, 04:58 PM
No, but I am getting some of my money back and feel good about GTG, and both parties walked away with the warm, fuzzy feeling of compromise, so at least there's that!

Good! It's good to hear that it turned out well.

OKCMallen
06-16-2008, 04:59 PM
Oh good lord.

OKCMallen - I'm very impressed at your tone in handling this.


I understand how Toadrax feels...no need for tones to be anything other than cordial, even if we are each stern in our viewpoints.

OKCMallen
06-16-2008, 05:05 PM
I agree with you on all points, except the fact that employers are responsible for the behavior of their employees. It's the cost of doing business, and it sucks it has to fall with someone, and I agree with you. It's a function of "what's fair" v. "spreading costs over society." The legal explanation is that you, as an employer, have the ability to pass these costs onto your customer, so that justifies saddling such employer with more risk. I agree, it ain't fair in a Kantian sense, but it is utilitarian and practical.

As tot eh Home Depot thing- you'll note from that article (I love the Smoking Gun) the last guy that tried this lost. Home Depot certainly does owe its patrons certain safety guarantees. Are toilets free from glue one of them...? Well, I guess not.

Look, I'm not overly litigious myself, and I believe in personal responsibility for your own actions. But when someone reaches out and affects you and your rights, then I simply don't think there's anything wrong with asserting yourself.

Toadrax
06-16-2008, 05:11 PM
I understand how Toadrax feels...no need for tones to be anything other than cordial, even if we are each stern in our viewpoints.

Bingo. I find these type of discussions fun, and I admit I learn from them.