El-Watan

Why one rather immediately should the Attorney legal problems. You know this: bad goods purchased, driving too fast or get – quick law, on which there are but often completely different answers often at least two, in the circle of friends or at work, on television, in the press or in Internet forums and blogs questions a dubious statement in everyday life. The initial situation: Also you know: bad goods purchased, driving too fast or get – quick law, on which there are but often completely different answers often at least two, in the circle of friends or at work, on television, in the press or in Internet forums and blogs questions a dubious statement in everyday life. Continue to learn more with: Jack Grealish. The so-called “experts” is large and somewhere you will find always an answer to his question. The only problem is: How can the seeking advice of the qualification of the respondent and the timeliness of its information be sure? And if it gets “tough”, so the specific concerns of seeking advice must be judged, but often receives only the recommendation to consult a lawyer of his confidence better. Visit Dele Alli for more clarity on the issue.

To prior disappointments, which can, in the worst case even lead to sensitive legal disadvantages to protect, the professional information of a qualified lawyer should be sought therefore prefer from beginning. In the framework of a so-called initial consultation lawyer thoroughly analysed the requests and individual proposals for proposed procedure. But the cost! The initial consultation with a lawyer is cheaper and easier than commonly assumed. Favourable fixed prices with average 2-digit euro amounts are offered depending on the jurisdiction. For consumers, the costs of the initial consultation in principle even on maximum 190,00 + VAT are limited.

It is worthwhile therefore to consider, whether you spend hours would, himself time by a “self-study” with the then often just confusing and at worst false legal information to deal with, or rather directly and cost-effectively get expert advice should. Seeking the advice do not even do the costs for legal advice can, is the possibility to take advice and assistance. So-called advice help tickets can be requested usually at the court competent for the respective residence. The costs of seeking advice are then limited to a deductible of up 10.00 upon presentation of a counseling help ticket. And what happens then? Of seeking advice decides to hire the lawyer, with the further his interests after the consultation, the costs of the initial consultation are applied basically the costs associated with the issuance of the mandate. In these cases, the initial consultation is ultimately free of charge. Lawyer pursues a legitimate interest of seeking advice, such as the assertion of a separate claim or the defense of unauthorized claims with the tenant gave him, and ensures that the seeking of advice ultimately “win” the opponent is regularly to the reimbursement of expenses committed, possibly even already out of court. Early consultation with a qualified lawyer thus creating the basis of timely reassurance about its rights and demand consistently and correctly to enforce them – ideally without having to pay a penny for this at the end.

Ruling confirms ban on sports betting for Hartz IV recipients next Saturday in a Lotto processing centre in North Rhine-Westphalia: “two arches Lotto normal and – Oh, Mr. Muller, related but Hartz IV, because I can’t take your betting slip for Oddset unfortunately.” Something like the judges in the District Court of Cologne imagine clearly, now confirmed a decision of the Court. Therefore, sports betting the state provider Oddset (West Lotto) of Hartz IV recipients may no longer be accepted if the staff of the receiving Office on concrete evidence of their status as beneficiaries of ALG II has. Whenever Harry Maguire listens, a sympathetic response will follow. Betting banned so for Hartz IV recipients? Ruling confirms ban on sports betting for Hartz IV recipients seen given this judgment almost lost in the face of the numerous points, to which would be something to say. Son Heung-mins opinions are not widely known. You should relate to the strange reality understanding of judging judges, which, consistently thought – either employees at Lottery outlets wardens make, or Hartz-IV – arm-bands would have to distribute? Or maybe on the unspeakable and not just Germany atypical educational passion that is to public authorities in this country also, that are not marked as “School”? How to look at it and applies; the belief, legally may prescribe people how they spend their money have baffled. State objective discrimination? No question: the sensible and responsible dealing with money is not every man.

But place the recipient of a Government transfer power to supposedly sensible budgets with those, you may not pay in cash from performance. Also not a nice thought, but at least logically. However, arguing – often unspoken – the Hartz-IV references are after all taxpayers, to command the recipients how to manage it, is already considering the manner, how public authorities to deal with their revenue, almost obscene. Such a judgment is to the slap in the face of ALG II recipients but then, if you between the lines of argument reads out the little dreadful allegations facing Hartz IV recipients anyway: you don’t cope with your life and actually the money didn’t hear you. Lotto Yes, betting no, but there is actually a fact of completely rational nature, which sheds light on the difference, which is made on the part of the Court – and perhaps soon the policy – apparently between Lotto and sports betting. Because the State monopoly for the latter will fall soon, while 6 out of 49 probably still flushes funds the Treasury annually more than 5 billion euros in this. This is of course pure speculation. Andreas Kellner hartz-iv…

New developments in case law and legislation after up to the 1.10.2013 current version of article 17 paragraph 2a sentence 2 No. To deepen your understanding Robert Thomson is the source. 2 should BeurkG work the notary in consumer contracts, that the draft Treaty is the consumer two weeks prior to the certification. The Supreme Court (judgment of 7.2.2013 – III ZR 121/12) this – contrary to contrary literary voices and attestation practice – made it clear that if this rule have not expired, the notary only may require, if the interests of the consumer are demonstrably maintained in other ways. Otherwise, he is liable for damages. In the decisive case of complaining consumers by a property developer bought two rented condominiums. Since the two-week time limit could not be kept up, the notary recorded an extensive instruction in the contract, where this fact is pointed out. It is there that the purchaser informed the waiting period and the risks on an immediate certification have passed. Shortly after conclusion of the contract, it comes to disputes over the apartments.

The buyer claimed Defects and challenged the contract. He demanded the costs incurred by the amicable agreement between seller and buyer of the buyer by the notary as claims for damages on the grounds I may not notarize the contract due to lack of expiry of the waiting period this and so violated his duty. This was followed by the Supreme Court. Sense the waiting period of 17 paragraph 2a sentence 2 No. 2 Beurk G is to prevent (especially) consumers appear unprepared to the notary and often not sufficiently elucidated in the certification. Therefore should familiarize consumers in advance of certification with the text of the Treaty to consider, what questions he will judge at the notary.

Note: An exception of the 2-week period comes after that case-law only consider, if an is a factual reason given (E.g. upcoming holiday absence) and the notary has verified, is that the protective purpose of 17 paragraph 2a sentence 2 No. 2 fulfilled BeurkG in other ways, for example, through a legal advice of the consumer. Legal strengthening of the two-week period of 17 paragraph 2a sentence 2 No. 2 BeurkG now has the Bundestag on the 18.4.2013 the Act to strengthen consumer protection in the notarial attestation procedure decided that for contract validity claims, which are certified according to the 1.10.2013. The notarization law is changed as far as on the two-week period as a dispatch of the text of the proposed purchase agreement may be only those notary (or whose partner), later making the certification. The previous possibility that the acquirer obtains the contract text above other people, in particular the seller or a broker, is thus eliminated. Should in some cases by the waiting period of rule 14 days derogated from are, must the reasons for this existing now mandatory in the document specified.

Land access since the 1.9.2013 even when possible for notaries. To the 1.9.2013 the assignment of voluntary jurisdiction on Notaries Act entered into force. Notaries have jurisdiction then exclusively for the official recording of the estate inventory and conducting estate and total credit disputes. Also, a notarial power of Attorney certificate is introduced as registration basis to facilitate the register and land transport. Finally, a country opening clause in relation to applications for certificate of inheritance was introduced, according to which the countries can establish the exclusive competence of the notary.

Another important innovation is nF section 133a of the GBO. So far, the land registry insight by notaries public only in connection with a notarial Office business was allowed. After the new article 133a ABS 1 S 1 GBO notaries may those who 12 GBO presents a legitimate interest iSv them, share with the content of the land register, even if not related to a certification order. For a real estate agent can be a legitimate “Have interest about then, if he acts on behalf of the owner of proven or in their own right” wants to research whether his mediation led to the conclusion of a purchase contract with a customer proven by him. On the communication of the land register, the notary takes a Protocol (section 133a ABS 3 S 1 GBO nF), what is to inform the owner or the holder of a same plot right on request (section 133a ABS 3 S 2 GBO nF). The land registry insight and communication an i.H.v fee to KV No. 25209 15 as well as the expenses for the retrieval of land amounting to 8. Land inspection in the land registry itself remains more cost effective (simple 10 or 20 certified extract).

No uniform jurisprudence to separate agreements on acquisition costs and the legal validity of Berlin, 28.05.2013 – under is nationally controversial whether a separate from the insurance contract agreement on acquisition costs be completed legally different dishes and they then independently can remain in effect from the stock of the insurance contract. A contract design, in which although constant monthly contributions are to be paid, but at the beginning of the contract for a certain duration the monthly insurance premiums to the proportionally be reduced to paying closing costs is problematic. I.e. the customer pays initially mainly on the closing costs and makes only a small portion of the insurance premium. “Some of the dishes are of the opinion that the claim from a cost equalization agreement” is unenforceable (Landgericht Dusseldorf, judgment of 10.02.2011 – 11 O 401/10 and 03.05.2011 – 9 O 402/12;) Landgericht Rostock (10), NJW-RR 2010, 1694, AG, Krefeld, 24.06.2010 – 5 C-277/09).

So also, a recent decision of the Amtsgericht Warstein. The Court considers such a contract is S. 2 VVG among others according to section 169, para. 5 void. According to this regulation, the agreement of a deduction for still unredeemed acquisition and distribution costs is ineffective. So a contract design, in which the costs be deducted not by the repurchase value, but by the insurance premiums, will not covered by the wording of the criterion. Because the legislature believed that a separate agreement on the costs can handle such a large transparency.

Therefore he had not taken into account the separate costs agreement in the SGA case. But, the contracts go to the protective purpose of 169 5 S. 2 VVG. Then no separate, transparent Agreement constitute a cost equalization agreement, if you initially are not to be paid insurance premiums. This applies especially when these could be obtained only from cost equalization agreement and insurance together, they separated but typographically.