So you don't know where and when what laws were passed, but you still assert that such laws are in force ??? Hello ??? Come back WHEN you can cite ACTUAL law to support you claim to be somewhat credible.
I did NOT say I didn't have a cite. Where'd you come up with that amazing claim?
From The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: "Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping."
California Penal Code #632 "(a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment..."
Funny, I thought you said this was called "Public Domain".
Since when do tv camera crews record police investigations? What am I missing?
Clueless as usual, bullis.
Don't you have a dome home to build?
My apologies, I misinterpreted an attribution. I read James' second paragraph (sentence) as a "reply" to his first paragraph, as though you had written his first paragraph.
The cable networks have a bunch of reality shows of car repossessors and pawn shop arguments that depict people being themselves enguaged in their normal activities. I like the, "bait car" episodes where the car thieves are recorded while inside their stolen vehicle happily driving it away, before the cops shut it down and lock all the doors...:^)
Do you really want crooks working in your home? Why don't you hire honest contractors?
The problem is that you have no way of knowing if they're lying to you, until AFTER the fact.
It's then that the recording can be replayed to them so 'remind' them of what they said to you.
Without the recording, they can say "I didn't say that".
Why else record?
Don't record, get everything in writing. Make sure it is signed. That should make it a legal document if ever needed.
It's hard to make a written memorandum of everything that's said and a recording is just as good (sometimes better) than a written document.
A "contract" is a meeting of the minds on the mutual rewards and obligations of the parties to the contract.
An "oral" contract is just as valid as a written one (with a few exceptions such as the sale of real estate). The problem with an oral contract, though, is that it degenerates into "he said, she said" confusion with no clear answer as to who is right. A recording usually eliminates that problem.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.