As a lawyer

 

As a lawyer “MrNP” (“Mr” stands for Master in Law)
apart from running an on-line juridical second-opinion service,
has among other things written many (mostly correcting) juridical comments.

To mention a few:

1) On striking

Somewhere in the eighties it repeatedly occurred, that truckdrivers striked for better working conditons and in that context not only refused to drive their trucks, but additionally placed them on highroads, thus obstructing all other traffic there, of course with the intention that this would force society as a whole to accept there claims.
In court judges used to declare, that this should not last longer that a few days, as it then would be illegal, no matter that the workers in case were using their legal right to strike.
Although having lots of understanding for the mentioned claims and agreeing with the fact that wrongs in that fiield should be abandoned, MrNP commented, that the legal right to refuse working on, in case circumstances are not acceptable, doesn’t include a right to violate any legal traffic rules.
It’s simply forbidden for everyone to put his car or whatever an other object down on a public traffic road, and in that rule there is no exception made for striking truckdrivers.
So the conclusion was, that this behaviour was not just illegal after a few days, but immediately after it started.
Furthermore it was pointed out, that as a consequence of this, the drivers could be sued for indemnation, by all other users of the relevant raods, that as a result of the blockades lost time and suffered other kinds of damage.
Since then untill yet that kind of ‘strikings’ haven’t occured any more in the relevant country.
Neither have there been kindlike actions of schipowners, who used to blockade waterroads, in order to fortify their claims in the field of appointment of orders.
But there have been several times later on, that when there were strikes for better wages in some sectors, like train transport and even police, he pointed on the fact, that there’s no rule in whatever a national or international law or treaty, that offers the right to do this.
As said before, in labour right there ís a rule, saying that workers can stop their activity, in case circumstances on the workingplace are not acceptable (for instance too dangerous or threatening health otherwise), but loan is a completely different subject. Once a worker signed his contract to do the relevant job for the agreed loan during the agreed period, he has to accomplish this contract completely and has no right to act otherwise, only in order to force the employer, to agree on a higher loan in the period to come.
The only thing workers can do legally to reach this purpose, is, together with all other organised workers in the relevant sector, tell the employer(s), that they will not sign a new contract for the period to come, when their claims for a better loan will not be granted.

2) On smoking in working places

Also somewhere in the eighties there was a lot ado about protests of non-smoking employees against the fact, that they were forced to smoke passively, as a result of the smoking of other workers.

Neither unions, however, nor employers organisations saw legal possibillities to forbid smoking in working places.

It was pointed out then, that as it is a prooved and generally known fact, that smoking passively is also rather bad for health and a cause of among others lung cancer, protesting workers can always demand in court that their collegues stop damaging other employees’ health, as this is not only bringing them damage, but also a generally forbidden fact in penal right.

From then on there was hardly any resistance any more against rulements of employers in the field of smoking their workingplace.

3) On call contracts

Less succesfull was MrNP’s mission against efforts of empoyers to make workers accept the figure of working on call.
When public discussion about that was going on he pointed out that acoording to the law a working contract is an agreement to do a certain work during a certain time.

So in case the time during which the relevant work can be done (and paid for) is nót certain this cannot be concidered to be a legal working contract.

Nevertheless this figure not long afterwards made it’s entrance in the relevant country together with the not so human consequences, that since then many people are very unsure about when they will be allowed to earn some loan and have to deal with rather asocial other circumstances in that context.

MrNP still wonders whether his effort would have been more succesfull, if he wouldn’t have tried to coöperate with the biggest union in this matter; for apart from the fact that it didn’t really seem to be a very heavy matter there, not long afterwards certain of the relevant contact-persons happened to make a remarkable promotion upto a governmental seat.

4) Supreme Court jurisprudence

A bank had gone broke, while in one of its safes it was keeping a big number of shares in custody for several clients who all owned a number of the same kind in the same company.
When they claimed their ones from the bankruptcy estate the trustee refused to return them, as none of the clients could proove which pieces exactly were theirs, becasuse no numbers had been registrated by the bank.
Supreme Court as well agreed with this vision, and clients had no chance of getting their properties back.
To MrNP they would have got them back if they wouldn’t individually have claimed their pieces, but all together would have claimed all shares of the relevant kind in the relevant banksafe because they had become co-owners of the whole stack.

5) In the field of insurance

Somewhere in the middle of the nineties, he pointed out, that to be insured optimally against fire and theft, it would be necessary to add to the untill then usual replacement value of the household effects an amount representing the costs it would bring to go shopping again for all lost things as well as the time it would take to get them into their right place again (home furnishings). Shopping as well costs lots of time ans more than that transportation spendings for gasoline or tickets.

Since then insurance companies accept and advice an addition to the insured capital of an average 10 % of the replacement value on this risk.

In about the same year he suggested there might be a possibility for retailers to insure the risk of decreased sales as a result of a lacking reachabelness of their business building due to calamities or public works in the relevant street or neighbourhood.

6) On Last wills

As for wills, MrNP has spent quite some attention to the fact that such a notary made document in practise has turned out to be not by far the 100% reliable one it is supposed to be, namely guaranteing that ones wishes will be realised the way one has expressed in it.

For instance it relatively often occured already, that a notary was expelled from his/her function, because he (or she) turned out to have changed such a will thus, that not the originally mentioned person(s) inherited what was devised to them, but the notary him/herself.

As a matter of fact possibilities to misuse the legal possibillity to make a will are that big and fargoing, that MrNP concluded, that the only way to avoid the risk of people being cheaten by use of such a formal document, is cancelling its legal existance.

For it’s not only relatively easy for others to change or have changed it’s content in case it has been made legally, but it moverover is very well thinkable that others make a false one, in case one has preferred not to make one oneself.
 

7) (More will follow a.s.a.p.)

 

———–

Advertenties