Recent Answers to California Law Questions

Adam J.

Answered Jul 7, 2026

This is the United States of America. You can sue anyone.

Matthew K.

Answered Jun 2, 2026

You can sue anyone for any reason. Your real question is, "will I be successful?" That question cannot be answered without looking at the evidence supporting your allegations and the relationship with your aunt. If you are a disabled adult, as defined by your state's law, and your aunt was your guardian or conservator, then it is possible that a rebuttable presumption would arise. That means, it would be assumed that your aunt breached her fiduciary duties to you and it is presumed that fraud and undue influence came into play. The burden would be on her to rebut the presumption. Your case would become much stronger.

Matthew K.

Answered Mar 3, 2026

After the sale, did you continue living there and paying the lease amount? It's difficult to expand on my answer without reading the agreement (it cannot be oral). Assuming the agreement is what you say, you might consider recording a Lis Pendens on the property. That will get everyone's attention, I can assure you. Probably also consider a quiet title action. None of that advice is necessarily relevant; it depends on what the agreement says.

Elizabeth J.

Answered Mar 3, 2026

Your rights will depend in part on the specific terms of the rent-to-own agreement, but generally a valid lease with an enforceable option to purchase may bind a subsequent purchaser. If the option was not recorded or the conservator obtained court approval to sell free of encumbrances, your remedies may be affected. A full analysis would require reviewing the written agreement, the probate or conservatorship court orders, the sale documents, and the current status of title.

Randy M.

Answered Sep 14, 2025

When you upload a video to YouTube, you're automatically agreeing to their Terms of Service and Copyright Policy. What that really means is this: you're saying you either own the rights to every part of your video or you've gotten permission to use it. There isn’t a separate “Copyright License Agreement” that gives you a pass to use copyrighted material freely. That includes music, movie clips, TV shows, sports highlights, and even images you found online. Just giving credit or adding a line like “no infringement intended” doesn’t offer any legal protection. Now, how does YouTube actually enforce all of this? It mainly comes down to two systems. The first is Content ID. That one’s automated. It scans your video against a big database of copyrighted material that rights holders have submitted. If there’s a match, you’ll get a Content ID claim. That’s not the same as a copyright strike, but it can still have consequences. The rights holder might choose to monetize your video, block it in some countries, or just track how it performs. A lot of creators run into this when they use popular music, and usually the result is that they lose monetization for that video. In some cases, the rights holder might go a step further and issue both a Content ID claim and a formal takedown. The second system is a DMCA takedown notice. That’s a legal process under U.S. copyright law, and it lets a rights holder demand that infringing content be removed. If that takedown is valid, your channel gets a copyright strike. One strike can block you from live streaming. If you get three strikes within 90 days, your channel and any linked accounts can be terminated. Strikes expire after 90 days if you go through YouTube’s Copyright School, but if you keep getting them, things can escalate fast. Now, fair use is where a lot of creators hope they’re protected. It’s a legal doctrine in the U.S., found in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. In short, it allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission, as long as the use meets certain criteria and is considered transformative. Courts look at four main factors: First, the purpose and character of the use. Second, the nature of the copyrighted work. Third, how much of it you used and how significant that portion was. And fourth, whether your use could harm the market for the original. For example, if you're reviewing a movie and include a few short clips with your own commentary, that’s much more likely to fall under fair use than posting a montage of fight scenes with no added value. Using factual material, like a short news segment in a critique, tends to be safer than copying a full song or film scene. But the truth is, fair use is case-specific. There’s no guaranteed rule like “10 seconds is okay.” Only a court can give a definitive answer. So what can you do? The safest route is always to license the content. Services like Epidemic Sound, Artlist, and Storyblocks let you use music and footage under a subscription license. For free material, YouTube’s Audio Library is a solid option. You can also look at public domain works. In the U.S., that currently includes anything published before 1929. That date moves up each January 1. Another option is Creative Commons content, but you’ll need to follow the terms of those licenses, which can include attribution or limits on commercial use. If you’re going to rely on fair use, make sure what you’re doing is truly transformative. That means adding something original, like commentary, criticism, or parody. Use only what’s necessary and avoid the most recognizable or valuable parts of the original. It’s important to understand that even if you’re confident your video qualifies as fair use, YouTube can still take it down if the rights holder files a takedown notice. Your option at that point is to dispute it, but that can come with risks, including potential legal action. If your channel is monetized, repeated claims or strikes can impact your income and the long-term future of your account. Because fair use is such a gray area and carries real consequences, it’s wise to talk to a copyright attorney if you plan to use third-party material often. The attorneys on Contracts Counsel would be happy to assist.

Randy M.

Answered Sep 8, 2025

An indemnification agreement signed under duress may not be enforceable, but whether it can be voided depends on the specific facts of your case and the law in your jurisdiction. Contract law requires voluntary consent. If consent is obtained through coercion, the agreement is generally considered voidable by the party placed under duress. Legal Standard for Duress Courts recognize two main forms of duress. Physical duress involves threats of bodily harm and is the clearest ground to void a contract. Economic duress occurs when someone is pressured into signing due to wrongful or coercive economic threats. The threat of termination can sometimes qualify, but courts apply a high standard. They will look at factors such as whether you had any reasonable alternatives, whether the employer acted in bad faith, and whether the circumstances left you with no meaningful choice but to sign. For example, if you were told you’d be fired unless you signed immediately, with no chance to review the document or seek advice, that kind of artificial urgency could support a duress claim. On the other hand, if you were given time to consider the agreement and could have reasonably sought other employment, courts are less likely to find duress. Employment-at-Will Context Most states follow the at-will employment doctrine, which allows employers to terminate employees for almost any reason that is not illegal. Because of that, courts often treat workplace ultimatums as business pressure rather than wrongful coercion. However, the doctrine doesn’t give employers unlimited power. If the termination threat was used specifically to force you to assume liability for risks the employer is legally responsible for, that can be considered improper and may render the agreement voidable. Shifting Liability to Employees Indemnification clauses in employment contracts are closely scrutinized because employers generally bear the legal duty to maintain safe workplaces. Federal law under the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers, not employees, to ensure workplace safety. Courts in many states have refused to enforce agreements that shift liability for workplace accidents from the employer to the employee, especially if the employer is in a better position to insure against those risks. For example, California Civil Code §1668 voids contracts that exempt a party from responsibility for violations of law or duties owed to the public. Similar public policy principles apply in other states. Practical Challenges Even if duress can be established, you may still need to demonstrate that the indemnification terms themselves were unreasonable or unconscionable. Courts will often look at whether the agreement was one-sided, whether you had a meaningful opportunity to negotiate, and whether the employer sought to impose obligations that are inconsistent with public policy. Next Steps If you’re facing liability based on this indemnification clause, it’s important to preserve all evidence of how the agreement was presented to you. Keep records of emails, conversations, or witnesses that can confirm the circumstances of the signing. An employment or contract attorney in your state can evaluate whether the clause is enforceable, raise duress or unconscionability as defenses, and, if necessary, argue that public policy prevents shifting liability to you. On Contracts Counsel, you can connect with experienced contract attorneys who can review your agreement, consider the circumstances surrounding it, and guide you on your next steps.