так и спать если будут, никто знать не будет
это не значит что это разрешено
вы знаете что [attorney-client] релатионшип может вобще на ровном месте получица?
сматрите какая хренота
The leading case on implied attorney-client relationships is Togstad v. Vesely,
Otto, Miller & Keefe, 291 N.W.2d 686, 693 (Minn. 1980). In Togstad, the parties
never discussed fee arrangements, never exchanged correspondence, and the
attorney took no formal action on the plaintiff’s behalf. During a meeting at the
attorney’s office that lasted no more than an hour, the plaintiff described how her
husband had suffered a stroke after surgery. At the end of the meeting the
attorney told her that he did not think there was a case, but he would discuss it
with his partner. She expected him to call her if he changed his mind. When he
did not call, she assumed there was no case. Later, she consulted another
lawyer. By that time, the statute of limitations had expired, so she sued the first
lawyer for malpractice.
The jury found that there had been an attorney-client relationship and awarded
her nearly $650,000. The Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that an
attorney-client relationship could be established under either a contract or a
reliance theory. Since she received advice from the lawyer under circumstances
which made it reasonably foreseeable to the lawyer that she would be injured if
the advice were negligently given and she reasonably relied upon the lawyer’s
advice in failing to pursue the claim, the verdict was upheld.
oмайгад
мужа, не соседа же. зачем еще муж зарабатывает, чтоб жена не тратила. звери чтоли.
пускай хоть к молодым гречанкам, без разницы, лишь бы ей устаканилось. а то у нее, магу ли я, хачу ли я, смагу ли я, судьба ли я,
облако как мариа-д в недавнем прошлом, но в перспективе будущего. еслиб та остался на своей волне, но через 15 лет
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
|
|
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy |
|