Heh. Well, I’m a fan :). Until this latest iteration of the Warriors, I preferred it to the NBA as I generally prefer a below-the-rims game. But there are damn few fans relative to the sport market as a whole, that’s for sure.
But I think the point is, it isn’t regarded as American brand of chocolate. It was founded in the UK and still headquartered in the UK.
I knew it!
Technically it’s the same continent. It’s just really, really big.
Nava answered this, but I will amplify the answer a bit:
The Middle East, whatever the Bush lads may pretend about Arabian kings, is traditionally part of the Third World–not strongly aligned either to London/Washington or to Moscow/Beijing. The fact that the Bushes (a family in the petroleum business) are super-chummy with the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families probably obscured that for a long time.
As for Catholicism in France, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no. La France is the homeland of laïcité. They put many of their clerics and holy orders to the guillotine a couple centuries ago.
Americans go on formal dates? I thought this country had substantially moved to hookup culture. There was much wailing about it by baby boomer writers in print and online a few years ago. I guess that was exaggerated, then.
I actually call ibuprofen “ibuprofen.” (And paracetamol “acetaminophen” which apparently I can’t spell.) But hey, did you know that the word “aspirin” was coined as a trademark for Bayer’s formulation of acetylsalicylic acid? (I can’t spell that either.)
You have that Dyson company now. They seem all right.
Including Hoovers, yes?
Well, I guess technically Wrigley was named for an owner, not a sponsor, but that’s not its original name.
Good to know. I probably annoy other Americans when they’re talking to me because I may be looking at something else. Maybe I got that from European movies, or maybe I just don’t find the speaker quite that interesting that I need to look at his face. Then again, I’ve had other Americans do it to me. It may run in my family, actually…
Oh, yeah, the veneration of one particular generation of land speculators and republicans, who couldn’t even get the rules of order right once they formed their own government. :rolleyes:
In any case, states that large simply don’t vote as single blocs. The electoral college “gives more weight to smaller states,” but it also nullifies about half the votes in the country from *all *states.
The parties themselves do it, because otherwise if there is a dispute, the first thing the judge will do is pull everybody’s ears for having an illegal contract, the second one is toss the contract, and the third is look at applicable laws instead. Many contracts are written in such a way that if the law changes, the contract itself doesn’t need to: you put in the contract those details the law doesn’t cover, and the rest is “according to [applicable law]”. Sometimes the law may get reviews but is expected to keep the name; in those cases, it’s named but its reference not given. For example, según la LAU - “according to the Law on Building Rentals”.
Wow, that’s an interesting question. I still use “First World” to refer to the West, but does it now include Poland? And, say, Czechia? Hurm.
Ah, yes, Liam O’Canada. Good pipes. 
It’s “O Canada.” Two words.
Pchsa, ain’t much messier than ours really… between the multiple layers, “European convergence” (trying to make laws on certain subjects more homogeneous across countries, or services more easily available cross-country), and “regional devolution” (moving to the regions responsibilities that used to be at the national level), them lawyers sure are busy keeping everybody else busy.
There are illegal or void contracts, such as a contract to deliver cocaine. Those are entirely unenforceable. Then there are contracts that are perfectly legal but might have some problematic terms.
The purpose of contract law in the common law system is to enforce the intent of the parties (to the extent that it doesn’t conflict with law). So the role of the judge is not to “pull your ears” but to determine how best to enforce your intent.
And, sometimes, if one or more of the parties have performed, or partially performed, it’s not fair to just throw out the contract entirely.
It might be that one problematic term makes the entire contract unenforceable. On the other hand, it might not be.
Furthermore, the written memorialization (document), is not the contract itself. It’s merely evidence of the contract, albeit very good evidence that is difficult to overcome. If it’s clear that the parties did not intend something illegal, then just because there’s something illegal in the memorialization doesn’t mean that the contract should be void.
And I don’t know what the relevance of naming particular laws is. Parties can choose to have the laws of a particular jurisdiction apply, but once that is done, all the laws of that jurisdiction will apply. You can’t pick and choose.
And a contract being a legally enforceable agreement, there aren’t laws covering every possible agreement. If you throw out all evidence of the parties’ intent, there isn’t necessarily a law out there to tell you what they intended to agree to do.
we only “prefer” it because we’re used to it, and people in general are resistant to change.
bullshit. in fact, I’d say it’s swung too far in the other direction now that every hipster douche is opening up his/her own brewpub.
only one of our TV networks and radio networks is publicly funded (PBS and NPR, respectively.)
besides, I find this comment of yours a bit silly. At least our sports teams’ uniforms actually have the team logo on them instead of being plastered with sponsor’s logos. If you asked me to identify by sight which teams were playing a football (soccer) game, my first guess would be “uh, AON vs. Nike?”
Similarly, I’ve found that Brits/Europeans don’t really grasp the size and variety of the US. No, you can’t take a day trip from Florida to Texas.
“Europeans think 100 miles is ‘far,’ Americans think 100 years is ‘old.’”
Can you give an example of the second, because I’m not at all sure what you mean? If you’re talking about issues like something being “legal” under state law but illegal under Federal law, that’s usually a bit of sloppy wording. Under most circumstances, it means that state law does not prohibit X and that state and local law enforcement leave enforcing Federal law to the Feds. It rarely, if ever , means the state actually has a law specifically allowing X and the Federal law contradicts it.
In general, when there are “conflicting” laws , you must follow the more restrictive one. For example, NYC banned indoor smoking before the state of NY did, so if you were in NYC you had to follow the NYC law. The NYC law included certain exemptions. The later state law did not include those exemptions, so when the law went into effect you couldn’t smoke in those places - but you wouldn’t be charged with violating the local law, you would be charged with violating the state law.
Why don’t these various laws don’t just get changed? Sometime because it’s not necessary or efficient to go through the effort of changing all the laws on the books to acknowledge changes in definitions or interpretations . But other times it’s necessary to leave them unchanged because the state or locality wants to have regulations in lace in case the higher law is repealed. In the smoking ban example, if NY state repealed the law, the NYC law would still be in effect.
Sometimes it’s not a conflict between laws even though people think it is. Lots of people think that NYC bans right turns on red. It doesn’t. NYS law prohibits right turns on red unless a sign permits it in cities with a population of more than one million.
Second part, to a point: if I am renting a flat in Barcelona, I can’t say I’m going to have the contract under French laws.
First part, brevity. It is the reference for all the bits that the parties have agreed on but not bothered put in the contract. You’re saying “just look it up” and where. Since most people entering contracts are not lawyers, you’re telling them where the rest of the contract is.
I’ve had rental contracts in multiple locations which amounted to two pages, and that only because the form required a ton of space at the beginning. They were along the lines of:
*
Joe Smith, Spanish ID number 1234567890, henceforth The Owner, is the owner of flat 3B in number 22 of Longview Street, Village (postal code). Nava, Spanish ID number 087210987, henceforth The Renter, is renting the aforementioned location from The Owner for the amount of Amount, payable monthly before the 5th of the month by bank transfer to IBAN 12345678912345678900.
In case repairs are needed, the party who finds about the need will notify the other party by phone (Owner: 2345678, Renter: 4567878) or email (Owner: 17234@mymail.com, Renter syetf@email.com) and they will agree on a case by case basis on who manages the repair.
For everything else, see LAU.
On Village, at Day, Month, Year.
Signature of Owner ------------------ Signature of Renter -----------------*
I have also been in locations where, by local regulation, by custom, or because the owner was tired of people being unable to read references, we had to copy. The whole. Freaking. Thing. Leading to 32 page contracts. As my grandmother put it when she finished signing “blasted long thing! It wasn’t so long when we rented it!” (I’m renting her flat - her own contract, which we have, was three pages but mostly because the owner was 6 people and all of them plus their spouses had to be identified).
doreen, in many European countries, laws need to get amended if they go against a higher one (not if they go beyond it); local laws can be more restrictive or detailed than higher ones and in fact are often required to be so. For example, that ban on smoking: having a ban on smoking that’s wider than national regulations is legal, but if the laws of the country make posession of a substance illegal, a province cannot declare it legal. The first goes beyond, the second goes against.
As for which laws apply: the one at the lowest level applicable for the location. Since that one has to include all higher-level ones, complying with the local law makes it automatic to comply with the higher-level ones. Often what happens is that the higher law or regulation requires entities at a lower level to provide certain services or restrictions, but not how: the how is left to those who actually manage it. For example: “all EU-member countries shall make it possible for residents who are nationals of another member country to vote in their local elections”. It doesn’t tell the different countries how to manage their voter rolls; that is in fact done differently in different countries.
That typically doesn’t happen in US either - that’s what I meant about sloppy wording. Usually, when you hear that possessing marijuana is “legal” under state A law, but illegal under Federal law it does not mean that state A has a law that declares possession legal - it usually means that state A has decriminalized possession under state law (meaning that possession is not defined as a crime, but may incur a non-criminal penalty like a traffic infraction) or that state law is completely silent on the issue. There are no doubt a few places that do have laws declaring marijuana is legal, but that’s not typical- but in those places (and any where the state law is silent) , if the Federal law is changed and marijuana is legalized under Federal law it will immediately be legalized in those states. In the states that merely decriminalized, it will still be illegal.
And in the US, the most restrictive law applies, regardless of the level. Complying with the most restrictive means you are automatically complying with any others. Which method you believe is better or more sensible no doubt depends on cultural issues and traditions (including whether states or provinces get their authority from the national government or the reverse) but I don’t see why one would be more confusing than the other.
Rental contracts in the US are typically longer than your example, but that’s because your example doesn’t include issues that perhaps are not regulated by law in the US in the same way as they are in Europe- or perhaps you just weren’t concerned about these issues. It doesn’t mention the length of the lease. In the US, that would typically mean it was month-to-month and require 30 days notice to end the tenancy- if either the landlord or tenant don’t want to have to look for a new tenant/apartment on 30 days notice, the lease needs to have a term and an end date. It doesn’t mention whether pets or washing machines are allowed ( it may be a NYC thing, but leases often prohibit or limit pets and clothes and dishwashers are often prohibited in older buildings , at least.) But I could use your sample lease as a landlord in the US- as long as I don’t mind pets, or dishwashers or getting 30 days notice when the tenant wants to leave , or not imposing a penalty when the rent is 10 days late or any other issue that the law is silent on. For example , the law might limit the amount of a late fee,or restrict the circumstances when it can be applied, but generally the law will not impose fees that are not in the lease.
The default length of the lease is… wait for it…
listed in the LAU!
So if you’re making a contract for that length and you’re in a place that accepts “see LAU”, you don’t need to specify it 
You just say “see LAU”. Which we did. Everything else you mention, the default values are in the LAU (default because they were the most common ones the last time the LAU got reviewed).
There are, however, some types of contracts that you can contract to be under the laws of France, such as a cruise ship ticket, even if you never even set foot in France in order to take that cruise.
This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with legal requirements. It’s just for convenience.
This just seems to be a difference between a common law jurisdiction and a code jurisdiction. If a local law conflicts with the law of a higher jurisdiction, under the common law, it just doesn’t get enforced. The legislature is sovereign—no one can force them re-write the law, even if it is unenforceable in a court.
It’s the same here,except that we don’t even have to write in “see specified law”.The default here is that tenants can do what is not prohibited ( like have a dog or a washing machine) and landlords cannot impose new rules like charging a late fee or prohibiting pets during the term of a lease. There are also a few specific rules like the length of tenancy when it is not specified in the agreement or the landlord’s requirement to provide heat and hot water (although who pays for the fuel may be determined by the lease). The difference is not that Europe has default values and the US doesn’t. It’s a difference in how the defaults are determined- apparently, in Europe, the default is what’s most common and that’s not necessarily the case in the US.
Like I said, if the parties are satisfied with the default values, a US lease can be as short as yours. It’s just that Americans are perhaps less likely to be satisfied with the defaults than you are* - you don’t mention the default value for the term of a lease , but presumably even in Europe you can agree to a longer or shorter term, can’t you?
- for example month-to month leases are only desirable in certain situations. Tenants sometimes want them because they expect to move but don’t know when and don’t want to sign a year-long lease and need to move after five months. Landlords sometimes want them because it’s a small building and the owner and/or the owner’s family occupy part of the building and they don’t want to be stuck with a tenant they dislike for a year.
That example was not “for Europe”. Two of the locations where I’ve had very long contracts were Glasgow and Barcelona (and I had mentioned Barcelona already). The original ones, both of which were in Europe as of last check (or close enough for most definitions).
It was for places where there is one (1) single law that will be used as reference and local law and custom allow for it to be listed as the reference, obviating the need to re-copy everything that’s already defined in the law and does not need to be changed.
Anything which is not defined in the law, or where the parties agree to take a specific option of several, or where they agree on an option other than the default (which in such locations is listed so the law can serve its purpose of making contracts briefer - a purpose that only some laws in some locations have), will of course be listed in the appropriate documents. But even this follows the principle of “the more-specific document [the contract] supersedes the more-generic one [the law or regulation] except if it can’t”. For example, a contract establishing a marriage between more than two parties is null*, because that’s one detail where the local laws don’t give such an option. On the other hand, a contract where each spouse keeps all property separate from the other is legal within Spanish law in all the country - although it is the default only in three regions.
- Except when said marriage has been entered in another location where it was legal and the new location has a treaty with the original one, indicating that it will recognize such a union in all or in part.
Guys the three of you are having what I am sure is a fascinating conversation, which happens to have very little to do with the OP. 
Americans who drive standard transmission automobiles tend to think they are better, more sophisticated drivers who are more attuned to their cars. In virtually 100% of the rest of the world, driving a standard is, well, standard. Driving a stick shift does not make you special. It makes you normal.