legal Free Legal Advice

[bokam]

younghermit,

 

Oh well, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, its anybody's ball game.

 

Try to cross refer Art 106, paragraph 3 with Dept of Labor DO 18-02, Series of 2002.

 

 

Here's a glimpse of DO 18-02:

 

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Intramuros, Manila

 

DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 18 - 02

(Series of 2002)

 

RULES IMPLEMENTING ARTICLES 106 TO 109

OF THE LABOR CODE, AS AMENDED

 

x x x

Section 4. Definition of Basic Terms. - The following terms as used in these Rules, shall mean:

 

(a) "Contracting" or "subcontracting" refers to an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to put out or farm out with a contractor or subcontractor the performance or completion of a specific job, work or service within a definite or predetermined period, regardless of whether such job, work or service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal

 

x x x

Section 5. Prohibition against labor-only contracting. Labor-only contracting is hereby declared prohibited. For this purpose, labor-only contracting shall refer to an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job, work or service for a principal, and any of the following elements are present:

 

i) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investment which relates to the job, work or service to be performed and the employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are performing activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal; or

 

ii) the contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of the contractual employee.

 

x x x

Section 19. Solidary liability. The principal shall be deemed as the direct employer of the contractual employees and therefore, solidarily liable with the contractor or subcontractor for whatever monetary claims the contractual employees may have against the former in the case of violations as provided for in Sections 5 (Labor-Only contracting), 6 (Prohibitions), 8 (Rights of Contractual Employees) and 16 (Delisting) of these Rules. In addition, the principal shall also be solidarily liable in case the contract between the principal and contractor or subcontractor is preterminated for reasons not attributable to the fault of the contractor or subcontractor.

x x x

 

 

Have a nice day! :upside:

[sprongklonk]

Internal modem or external modem? Anyways...

 

Installing an internal modem in Windows 98 can be more grief than it’s worth, but we know the solution to your problem. The reason your modem won’t have been detected is because it requires a ‘virtual’ COM port, either port three or four, and these aren’t installed by default.

 

To do this manually, launch the Add New Hardware wizard from the Control Panel. Click Next twice, the wizard will look for – and not find – new hardware on your PC. Now select No, I want to select the hardware from a list and click Next again. Choose Ports (COM & LPT), click Next and make sure Communications Port is selected. Click Next and accept the default settings. Click Next and shut down and restart when prompted.

 

Once Windows has rebooted, open Device Manager to verify COM port three has been added successfully, then repeat for COM port four. Once this has been added, shut down and physically install your modem if it hasn’t been already. Windows will automatically detect it on reboot – if not, add it using the Modems Control Panel. If it still doesn’t automatically detect it, add it manually to either COM port three or four. We’re assuming you have the drivers for it – if not, you’ll need to perform a search for your chipset.

 

Hope this will help. Good luck!

maraming salamat. going to try it later when i come home.

[younghermit]

extreme xxx the post tells me to 'launch from All Programs, right click on the Mechwarrior listing, and choose compatibility, win 9*' how do I do that? where's this compatibility wizard thingie? I also read something that said 'make a shortcut to the set up on the cd on your desktop and run the set up in win9* compatibility mode' is this possible and how?

If you create a shortcut to any application. Right click on the shortcut and view its properties- compatibility is one of the tabs provided for. select this compatibility tab and then you can modify it with respect to the compatibility mode, screen res. etc.

[bokam]

joe629,

 

Oops, Indeterminate Sentence Law is not PD968 but Act 4103, as amended. PD 968 is Probation Law. Got it mixed up. My bad, sorry.

 

Yup, the convict, even if qualified, has to serve jail time. The couple has to serve the minimum penalty imposed on them.

 

Ummm, not so good at computing penalties. Its better that you ask the people from the Probation and Parole Division in your City/Municipality. They are usually located where the Regional Trial Courts are. They can asnwer any questions you have on the matter.

 

Based from what you said previosuly, I was quite surprised that the SEC lawyers went to the extent as to prosecute the couple in court. Usually, they just use that as a ground to deny / revoke the application for incorporation and nothing more.

 

Anyway, as for the lawyer, maybe there's such a thing as karma. :evil:

[bokam]

younghermit,

 

btw, that was only for personal consumption. yumyum. Do not argue with your prof. Its a bad idea, trust me. :cry:

[younghermit]

younghermit,

 

btw, that was only for personal consumption. yumyum. Do not argue with your prof. Its a bad idea, trust me. :cry:

I know, and I already tried to argue once. Looks like I need to put up something substantial and in writing coz I really believe that if right and justice to prevail, Art. 106 should be given a most liberal interpretation to afford employees ample protection against unscrupulous intermediaries.

[NoX]

Nox which search engine did you use? thanks for the link, already got the patch and have tried it. fixed the bugs inherent in using MW3 with an XP OS like flying mechs! had to still do the compatibility thing though coz the patch doesnt fix that.

thanks for all the help

google. good to hear you got it fixed. the things we do for gaming eh.

nalaro mo na ba lahat ng mechwarrior titles?

[bokam]

younghermit,

 

Principal is solidarily liable under DO 18-02 even up to the 3rd level (subcontractor). And if you correlate that to Art 106 Par. 3 of PD442, then you would get ur legal basis.

 

Gud Luk! :boo:

[vicaner]

google. good to hear you got it fixed. the things we do for gaming eh.

nalaro mo na ba lahat ng mechwarrior titles?

Nox let's see, mechwarrior 2, mechwarrior clan ghost bear, mechwarrior: mercenaries (all time favorite ito!), mechcommander I and II and then mechwarrior 3 (when my cousin downloaded the demo thing we were at it for so long trying to finish the instant action-enemy waves thing at hardest level. it was the most fun we had I think. MW4 didnt do anything for me coz of all the changes in the joystick configuration, didnt get to play it really

 

para di OT: thanks for the help on my PC call for help!

[Chi-Chi]

Hi!

 

Can anyone help me with my homework for introduction to commercial law. can anyone make the bold sentence easier to udnerstand asap?

 

3.``Layby sale'' defined—

 

(1)For the purposes of this Act a layby sale is a contract of sale of goods at retail under terms, express or implied, which provide that—

 

(a)The goods are not to be delivered to the buyer until the purchase price or a specified part or proportion thereof is paid, whether or not any charge is expressed to be payable for storage or delivery of the goods; and

 

(b)The whole or part of the purchase price—

 

(i)Is to be paid by instalments (whether the number of instalments or the amount of all or any of them is fixed by the contract or left at the option of the buyer) payable over a fixed or ascertainable period; or

 

(ii)Is to be paid at the expiration of a fixed or ascertainable period with the option, express or implied, for the buyer to make payments in respect of the purchase price during that period;

but a contract of sale of goods to be delivered by instalments, where the whole of the purchase price of each instalment is payable at the time that instalment is delivered, is not a layby sale.

thanks!

Edited August 4, 2004 by nzchick

[totoybola]

nzchick,

 

the key to understanding your problem lies in par. 1(a) which states that "the goods are NOT to be delivered to the buyer until the purchase price or a portion thereof is paid..." and the last paragraph which provides "but a contract of sale of goods to be DELIVERED BY INSTALLMENTS, where the whole of the purchase price of each installment is PAYABLE AT THE TIME THAT INSTALLMENT IS DELIVERED IS NOT A LAYBY SALE."

 

Just keep on reading those lines and I am sure you will understand the difference. I could spell it out but there would be no challenge in it for you... and I am also in a hurry to go to work. He he.

[Chi-Chi]

nzchick,

 

the key to understanding your problem lies in par. 1(a) which states that "the goods are NOT to be delivered to the buyer until the purchase price or a portion thereof is paid..." and the last paragraph which provides "but a contract of sale of goods to be DELIVERED BY INSTALLMENTS, where the whole of the purchase price of each installment is PAYABLE AT THE TIME THAT INSTALLMENT IS DELIVERED IS NOT A LAYBY SALE."

 

Just keep on reading those lines and I am sure you will understand the difference. I could spell it out but there would be no challenge in it for you... and I am also in a hurry to go to work. He he.

Hi there! Thanks for that, but I do understand

what the act is about.

 

I need to know the highlighted ones though

coz I have a case study!

 

Here's the case study para mas clear

 

Chen is a regular customer of Ab Fab Fashions. On 10 May 2004 she bought a number of items under the store’s special plan. She agrees to pay ½ of the purchase price at the expiry of one month and two months from 10 May. Chen took the clothes away with that same day.

 

Explain why Chen’s purchase was not a layby sale.

[younghermit]

Hi there! Thanks for that, but I do understand

what the act is about.

 

I need to know the highlighted ones though

coz I have a case study!

 

Here's the case study para mas clear

 

Chen is a regular customer of Ab Fab Fashions. On 10 May 2004 she bought a number of items under the store’s special plan. She agrees to pay ½ of the purchase price at the expiry of one month and two months from 10 May. Chen took the clothes away with that same day.

 

Explain why Chen’s purchase was not a layby sale.

Allow me to take a crack at your problem:

 

First, is the sale a RETAIL sale as against a Wholesale purchase?

The facts are not very clear in this respect. The facts do not reveal whether AB Fashion is engaged in retail/wholesale neither does it provide for the nature of the store's "special plan" nor the volume of Chen's purchase. Let us however assume that it is retail in order to allow further analysis.

 

Second, does it fall under 1(a)?

The answer is no, because Chen took the goods without paying a single penny.

Delivery was immediately effected.

 

Third does it fall under 1B(i)?

The answer is no, because the installments are not paid over a definite period of time, that is- on a regular basis. For example, payable on a daily basis, weekly, monthly etc.

 

Fourth does it fall under 1B(ii)?

The answer is still NO.

Although the portion (in this case-1/2) of the FUll Purchase Price is to be paid at the EXPIRY of a definite period (in this case at the end of 1 month and then 2 months from May 10) the buyer has NO OPTION to pay the price WITHIN the aforestated periods.

In other words, Chan could not pay the price BEFORE the expiry of the periods.

 

Conclusion: Chen's purchase is not a layby sale.

Hope it helps

Edited August 5, 2004 by younghermit

[heckler]

tanong po ... sino may crack ng goldwave tsaka swishmax? puro virus ung mga crack site eh .. tnx

[totoybola]

Nice analysis tol. Imodify ko lang ng konti (kung pwede).

 

NZchick, under the given definition, a layby sale is one which ALWAYS must meet the requirement in 1a, meaning, the goods are not to be delivered to the buyer until the purchase price or a specified part or proportion thereof is paid. PLUS, it must also meet the requirements of EITHER 1b(i) or 1b(ii). That is why there is an "AND" at the end of 1a and an "OR" at the end of 1b(i).

 

In your problem, the sale could not be a layby sale because it failed to meet the 1a requirement in the first place. Chen took all the goods away before paying a single centavo. Regardless of whether the sale complied with 1b(i) or 1b(ii), the sale can never be a layby sale.

 

Here, it can even be argued that the sale COMPLIED with both 1b(i) and 1b(ii). It complied with 1b(i) because the payment was to be on installment basis payable over a fixed or ascertainable period (at the expiry of one month and then two months from May 10 is an ascertainable period). It does not have to be on a regular basis as younghermit opines for as long as the period is ascertainable. (Actually, I believe "one month and then two months from May 10" falls under what younghermit calls "regular basis" kasi the payment is on a monthly basis na).

 

It can also be argued that the sale complies with 1b(ii) because there is NO PROHIBITION with regard to the buyer paying the purchase price before the end of the two-month period. Note that 1b(ii) states "with the option, express or IMPLIED, for the buyer to make payments..." Since there is no prohibition, the buyer can pay even before the period expires.The absence of a prohibition is an implied option which the buyer can avail of.

 

Nonetheless, despite my observations re compliance with 1b(i) and 1b(ii), the sale still cannot be a layby sale because it did not comply with 1a.

 

NZchick, I hope that the above response has given you some insight on the matter. The contrasting replies to your problem may not have given you a clear cut answer but at least it made you think, which, in the end, is what matters.

 

Peace.

 

 

P.S. Pasensya na kung mali ako. He he.