No no no....GTFO of the way!!
Luckily a cyclist warned me as I approached the trap by spinning his hand in the air above his head.
It was only after shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Italian supercar, though, that poor Johnny found out it just wasn’t fast enough.But thankfully you can help. Mirdita just needs another US$100,000 to install an Underground Racing turbocharger kit on his Lambo to take it to 1,400 wheel-horsepower — he simply can’t make do with the stock engine’s 610 hp (at the crank). If that doesn’t break your heart, we don’t know what to say.
In her decision in February 2019, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore sided with Climans. She ruled they were in fact long-time spouses, finding that despite their separate home, they lived under one roof at Latner’s cottage for part of the summer, and during winter vacations in Florida. Shore ordered him to pay her $53,077 monthly indefinitely. Latner appealed.The higher court leaned heavily on Shore’s analysis, finding she was right to conclude cohabitation can occur even when the parties stay together intermittently.The Appeal Court did find Shore had made an error in deciding how long Latner would have to pay Climans support based on when they first began cohabiting. While Shore had found that to be almost from the get-go, the higher court said it wasn’t earlier than their first stay together at his cottage, meaning they didn’t reach the threshold for indefinite payments.Instead, it ordered him to pay her support for 10 years.
Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support, appeal court ruleshttps://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-home-or-kids-together-but-couple-still-spouses-appeal-court-rules/QuoteIn her decision in February 2019, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore sided with Climans. She ruled they were in fact long-time spouses, finding that despite their separate home, they lived under one roof at Latner’s cottage for part of the summer, and during winter vacations in Florida. Shore ordered him to pay her $53,077 monthly indefinitely. Latner appealed.The higher court leaned heavily on Shore’s analysis, finding she was right to conclude cohabitation can occur even when the parties stay together intermittently.The Appeal Court did find Shore had made an error in deciding how long Latner would have to pay Climans support based on when they first began cohabiting. While Shore had found that to be almost from the get-go, the higher court said it wasn’t earlier than their first stay together at his cottage, meaning they didn’t reach the threshold for indefinite payments.Instead, it ordered him to pay her support for 10 years.
Quote from: quadzilla on September 12, 2020, 06:01:47 pmUnmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support, appeal court ruleshttps://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-home-or-kids-together-but-couple-still-spouses-appeal-court-rules/QuoteIn her decision in February 2019, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore sided with Climans. She ruled they were in fact long-time spouses, finding that despite their separate home, they lived under one roof at Latner’s cottage for part of the summer, and during winter vacations in Florida. Shore ordered him to pay her $53,077 monthly indefinitely. Latner appealed.The higher court leaned heavily on Shore’s analysis, finding she was right to conclude cohabitation can occur even when the parties stay together intermittently.The Appeal Court did find Shore had made an error in deciding how long Latner would have to pay Climans support based on when they first began cohabiting. While Shore had found that to be almost from the get-go, the higher court said it wasn’t earlier than their first stay together at his cottage, meaning they didn’t reach the threshold for indefinite payments.Instead, it ordered him to pay her support for 10 years.$53K a month for 10 years, holy!
My niece who lives in North Carolina had her appendix removed. Cost $35,000.
Quote from: quadzilla on September 17, 2020, 04:08:46 pmMy niece who lives in North Carolina had her appendix removed. Cost $35,000.Whoo-Eeee. Does she not have insurance? Or is that with insurance?Appendix removal isn't exactly something you can put off until you can afford it, either. It happens when it happens.
The customer isn't always right.Owner of limited edition Aston Martin ordered to pay Vancouver body shop over $300,000https://vancouversun.com/news/owner-of-limited-edition-aston-martin-ordered-to-pay-vancouver-body-shop-300000
Quote from: quadzilla on September 18, 2020, 03:21:36 pmThe customer isn't always right.Owner of limited edition Aston Martin ordered to pay Vancouver body shop over $300,000https://vancouversun.com/news/owner-of-limited-edition-aston-martin-ordered-to-pay-vancouver-body-shop-300000$200 per day for storage? Rapists..
Quote from: rrocket on September 18, 2020, 04:29:03 pmQuote from: quadzilla on September 18, 2020, 03:21:36 pmThe customer isn't always right.Owner of limited edition Aston Martin ordered to pay Vancouver body shop over $300,000https://vancouversun.com/news/owner-of-limited-edition-aston-martin-ordered-to-pay-vancouver-body-shop-300000$200 per day for storage? Rapists..Not necessarily. That's likely a punitive amount designed to force a customer to settle the original bill and get their car back.
Quote from: rrocket on September 18, 2020, 04:43:39 pmQuote from: Great_Big_Abyss on September 18, 2020, 04:33:53 pmQuote from: rrocket on September 18, 2020, 04:29:03 pmQuote from: quadzilla on September 18, 2020, 03:21:36 pmThe customer isn't always right.Owner of limited edition Aston Martin ordered to pay Vancouver body shop over $300,000https://vancouversun.com/news/owner-of-limited-edition-aston-martin-ordered-to-pay-vancouver-body-shop-300000$200 per day for storage? Rapists..Not necessarily. That's likely a punitive amount designed to force a customer to settle the original bill and get their car back. It's .Same crap shifty towing companies pull.They do it for greed...and because they can get away with it.I've seen enough news stories/articles/docu-features about this to know it's all part of their plan to gain entire ownership of the car and all proceeds from the sale.That being said...this woman did seem like quite the twit and douche for not paying her bill. You are NOT getting your car back without paying your bill, chick.But body shops can and do play their crooked games. I'm guessing this entire story would have never happened had she went through insurance (if she had insurance)When I was reading the news article, I read that they had to store the car indoors, because of the value of the vehicle. Now, I could be wrong, but would this vehicle now be taking up floor space which another damaged vehicle(s) could have been repaired and therefore generating revenue. If this body shop repairs mainly high end vehicles, with higher repair bills than your everyday commuter cars, a significant amount of income is probably being lost. I don't think in this case it was a crooked game.
Quote from: Great_Big_Abyss on September 18, 2020, 04:33:53 pmQuote from: rrocket on September 18, 2020, 04:29:03 pmQuote from: quadzilla on September 18, 2020, 03:21:36 pmThe customer isn't always right.Owner of limited edition Aston Martin ordered to pay Vancouver body shop over $300,000https://vancouversun.com/news/owner-of-limited-edition-aston-martin-ordered-to-pay-vancouver-body-shop-300000$200 per day for storage? Rapists..Not necessarily. That's likely a punitive amount designed to force a customer to settle the original bill and get their car back. It's .Same crap shifty towing companies pull.They do it for greed...and because they can get away with it.I've seen enough news stories/articles/docu-features about this to know it's all part of their plan to gain entire ownership of the car and all proceeds from the sale.That being said...this woman did seem like quite the twit and douche for not paying her bill. You are NOT getting your car back without paying your bill, chick.But body shops can and do play their crooked games. I'm guessing this entire story would have never happened had she went through insurance (if she had insurance)
Instead, Eggers alleges, hackers stole them all."Every week, [PC Optimum] would text me, 'See if you're a winner and click on the link!'" he explained."One of the links I clicked, and I still have the text, asked me to enter my PC optimum information."So, Eggers, 37, entered the couple's log-in details."I believe it is at that point that my identity was compromised," he told CBC Toronto.
The bread’s sugar content – five times the qualifying limit under the act – means that it falls outside of the legal definition of a staple food.
