![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thank you, but your case is totally irrelevant.
In your case, someone was trying to recover on a contract. Since the contractor was not licensed they could not legally enter into a contract. Since they couldn't enter into a contract, there was no contract. And since there was no contract, they couldn't recover. Now consider this: I am driving my car, and pull up and stop at a red traffic signal. The driver behind me doesn't stop quickly enough, and breaks my tail light window and bulb. We quickly exchange license and information and return to our cars. The traffic light turns green; can I proceed? Let's look at the facts: I have a green light, which grants me an explicit right-of-way through the intersection. I have a totally non-functional tail-light on my car, which is generally some violation of the motor vehicle code. So, under Mr. Patterson's interpretation, I would never be allowed to proceed through the intersection unless I had a mechanic come to the intersection to repair my tail-light. Obviously, this would be silly, and it's not correct. Normally, a grant of right-of-way is for a specific action(s). And the right of way is normally granted for a period long enough to accomplish the action. I could not take advantage of the right-of-way granted to me and pull into the intersection and stop, blocking all other traffic. When the light changed, granting a right-of-way to traffic coming from either side, by right=of-way would end, barring special circumstances. But, broken tail-light or no, I would be granted the right-of-way when the light turned green. One interesting point, if the light turned green, but an ambulance or firetruck were coming into the intersection, in most jurisdictions my right-of-way would be superseded by a "special" right of way normally enjoyed by emergency vehicles. "Larry Dighera" wrote in message news ![]() On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:42:39 -0600, "Bill Denton" wrote in Message-Id: : Would you be good enough to post a link supporting your assertion that: "it is a basic and well established legal principle that you lose your right of way if you are in violation of the laws or regulations"? I haven't read all of the FAR's yet so I suppose that could be true in the aviation world, but I can tell you that your supposition is totally false in the larger world of US law. I won a case in 1996 filed by an unlicensed building contractor who was demanding payment. The judge found that the California law denied unlicensed contractors legal remedy. I could research the statute, and so can you: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Logging time on a PCATD | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | December 18th 04 05:25 PM |
FAA Application -- kinds of time | Gary Drescher | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | November 23rd 04 02:33 PM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
they took me back in time and the nsa or japan wired my head and now they know the idea came from me so if your back in time and wounder what happen they change tim liverance history for good. I work at rts wright industries and it a time travel trap | tim liverance | Military Aviation | 0 | August 18th 03 12:18 AM |