General Liability Release And Waiver Of Claims: Fill & Download for Free

In addition to being a Luddite as Bruce Spielbauer says, he was also a victim of torture.In 1959, while he was a student at Harvard, Kaczynski was recruited into a three-year psychology experiment intended to find out how much psychological torture a person could take before having a psychotic break. The experiments were conducted by Harvard psychology professor Henry Murray, who had previously worked for the Office of Strategic Services during WWII, and after the war worked as a psychological profiler for the CIA. His work is instrumental to the modern practice of psychological profiling.Kaczynski and 21 other Harvard undergrads were asked to submit personal essays in which they described their ambitions, weaknesses, fears, personal failings, and most embarrassing secrets. Murray then used those essays to design what was effectively a system of psychological torture custom tailored to each of the study’s participants. The participants were not told what the study was about, what would happen to them, or that the study had been commissioned by the United States military to evaluate interrogation techniques for captured prisoners of war.During the experiment, Kaczynski and the others were wired up with electrodes, strapped down under bright lights, and subjected to screaming and beratement by multiple members of Murray’s research team, who used information from their personal essays to mock, humiliate, and degrade them. (Murray himself, in the experiment’s writeup, described these sessions as, quote, “vehement, sweeping, and personally abusive attacks.”)This experiment ran for three years. The student subjects were not permitted to resign from the study, and were coerced into participating. Murray went on to be called one of the greatest psychologists of all time, win many awards, and publish books.A lot of folks—unsurprisingly, I think—have suggested this experience drove Kaczynski’s hatred of academia in general and universities in particular.The Murray experiment and the Milgram electroshock experiment are what drove universities to create ethics review boards and impose strict ethical requirements on human experimentation. As astonishing as it seems today, Murray’s experiment was not considered wrong or even questionable at the time, and when it was done, no universities had any form of ethical oversight organization for human experimentation.Some of this story is told in this Psychology Today article:Is Psychology Responsible for the Unabomber?As I write this answer, someone on Quora is creating phony profiles that look just like mine, and using them to send abusive/harassing messages to people. If you receive an abusive PM or comment, check the profile carefully. It probably isn’t me. By signing this waiver, you agree to release the study organization from any and all claims of liability, direct or indirect.

In Florida there is a statutory procedure for compensating those who have been wrongfully convicted. The statute reads as follows:Florida Statute 961.06: Compensation for wrongful incarceration.—(1) Except as otherwise provided in this act and subject to the limitations and procedures prescribed in this section, a person who is found to be entitled to compensation under the provisions of this act is entitled to:(a) Monetary compensation for wrongful incarceration, which shall be calculated at a rate of $50,000 for each year of wrongful incarceration, prorated as necessary to account for a portion of a year. For persons found to be wrongfully incarcerated after December 31, 2008, the Chief Financial Officer may adjust the annual rate of compensation for inflation using the change in the December-to-December “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers” of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor;(b) A waiver of tuition and fees for up to 120 hours of instruction at any career center established under s. 1001.44, any Florida College System institution as defined in s. 1000.21(3), or any state university as defined in s. 1000.21(6), if the wrongfully incarcerated person meets and maintains the regular admission requirements of such career center, Florida College System institution, or state university; remains registered at such educational institution; and makes satisfactory academic progress as defined by the educational institution in which the claimant is enrolled;(c) The amount of any fine, penalty, or court costs imposed and paid by the wrongfully incarcerated person;(d) The amount of any reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred and paid by the wrongfully incarcerated person in connection with all criminal proceedings and appeals regarding the wrongful conviction, to be calculated by the department based upon the supporting documentation submitted as specified in s. 961.05; and(e) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in s. 943.0583 or s. 943.0585, immediate administrative expunction of the person’s criminal record resulting from his or her wrongful arrest, wrongful conviction, and wrongful incarceration. The Department of Legal Affairs and the Department of Law Enforcement shall, upon a determination that a claimant is entitled to compensation, immediately take all action necessary to administratively expunge the claimant’s criminal record arising from his or her wrongful arrest, wrongful conviction, and wrongful incarceration. All fees for this process shall be waived.The total compensation awarded under paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) may not exceed $2 million. No further award for attorney’s fees, lobbying fees, costs, or other similar expenses shall be made by the state.(2) In calculating monetary compensation under paragraph (1)(a), a wrongfully incarcerated person who is placed on parole or community supervision while serving the sentence resulting from the wrongful conviction and who commits no more than one felony that is not a violent felony which results in revocation of the parole or community supervision is eligible for compensation for the total number of years incarcerated. A wrongfully incarcerated person who commits one violent felony or more than one felony that is not a violent felony that results in revocation of the parole or community supervision is ineligible for any compensation under subsection (1).(3). Within 15 calendar days after issuing notice to the claimant that his or her claim satisfies all of the requirements under this act, the department shall notify the Chief Financial Officer to draw a warrant from the General Revenue Fund or another source designated by the Legislature in law for the purchase of an annuity for the claimant based on the total amount determined by the department under this act.(4) The Chief Financial Officer shall issue payment in the amount determined by the department to an insurance company or other financial institution admitted and authorized to issue annuity contracts in this state to purchase an annuity or annuities, selected by the wrongfully incarcerated person, for a term of not less than 10 years. The Chief Financial Officer is directed to execute all necessary agreements to implement this act and to maximize the benefit to the wrongfully incarcerated person. The terms of the annuity or annuities shall:(a) Provide that the annuity or annuities may not be sold, discounted, or used as security for a loan or mortgage by the wrongfully incarcerated person.(b) Contain beneficiary provisions for the continued disbursement of the annuity or annuities in the event of the death of the wrongfully incarcerated person.(5) Before the department approves the application for compensation, the wrongfully incarcerated person must sign a release and waiver on behalf of the wrongfully incarcerated person and his or her heirs, successors, and assigns, forever releasing the state or any agency, instrumentality, or any political subdivision thereof, or any other entity subject to s. 768.28, from all present or future claims that the wrongfully incarcerated person or his or her heirs, successors, or assigns may have against such entities arising out of the facts in connection with the wrongful conviction for which compensation is being sought under the act.(6)(a) A wrongfully incarcerated person may not submit an application for compensation under this act if the person has a lawsuit pending against the state or any agency, instrumentality, or any political subdivision thereof, or any other entity subject to the provisions of s. 768.28, in state or federal court requesting compensation arising out of the facts in connection with the claimant’s conviction and incarceration.(b) A wrongfully incarcerated person may not submit an application for compensation under this act if the person is the subject of a claim bill pending for claims arising out of the facts in connection with the claimant’s conviction and incarceration.(c) Once an application is filed under this act, a wrongfully incarcerated person may not pursue recovery under a claim bill until the final disposition of the application.(d) Any amount awarded under this act is intended to provide the sole compensation for any and all present and future claims arising out of the facts in connection with the claimant’s conviction and incarceration. Upon notification by the department that an application meets the requirements of this act, a wrongfully incarcerated person may not recover under a claim bill.(e) Any compensation awarded under a claim bill shall be the sole redress for claims arising out of the facts in connection with the claimant’s conviction and incarceration and, upon any award of compensation to a wrongfully incarcerated person under a claim bill, the person may not receive compensation under this act.(7) Any payment made under this act does not constitute a waiver of any defense of sovereign immunity or an increase in the limits of liability on behalf of the state or any person subject to the provisions of s. 768.28or other law.

It all depends on the jurisdiction. Different countries in the world actually have different laws, including the contract law (surprise!).I’m from Russia and in Russia the answer is no, you wouldn’t be legally obliged to do so.But the answer to your question may be very different in different countries. In some legal systems contracts prevail over legislation. That means that if particular something had been defined in a contract, the contract clause takes priority even if administrative law or some code says otherwise and the court will enforce the contract over precedent or the law. In some (like in Russia) - it’s the other way round and legislation prevails over contracts. In such systems the courts will grant the contract sides any rights and obligations assigned by the law, even if the contract says otherwise.In different countries there may be very different practices as to what constitutes a contract and what doesn’t as well as reasons to terminate or lawfully breach a contract. And so on. What may be considered a contract in one country may be but a worthless piece of paper (or whatever it is you had it on) in another because of some technicality.As I live and work in Russia, I’ll explane the case in Russian Federation. I realise you probably have no practical use for it, but it may still serve as an illustration of possible ways of resolving this kind of case.There are two ways to get out of a contract like the one you’re describing in your answer:Path 1:Russian Civil Code recognizes several types of contracts and any contract signed will be qualified as one of those types. There are such types as “purchasing/selling contract”, “supply contract”, “general contractor contract”, “gift contract” etc. Rules are specified for each type of contract that supercede the terms of the contract itself. If the point of the 500 page contract in question was the fact that you’re obliging yourself to pay your entire savings to a contractor, it qualifies as a gift contract”Civil Code of RF, Art 572.1: In a gift contract one side (the gifter) delivers or undertakes to deliver in the future without compensation to the other side (the gifted) the ownership of an object or a property right (right to claim) or a waiver of a property liability to itself or a third party.Yup. “Pay entire life savings” sure looks like a gift to me.Then here’s your way out:The Civil Code of Russia clearly states (art. 572.2, par. 2):“A promise to gift all of one’s belongings or part of all of one’s belongings without an explicit indication of a specific object of a gift such as a physical object, right, or waiver of liability is void”.So in this particular case, at least if the wording is as you’re giving it “entire life's savings” art. 572.2 is clearly applicable. A promise to gift “entire life’s savings” is expressly made void by the law. The other side has no right to claim fullfilment of any such obligation, as the obligation in question does not exist by law.Path 2:An alternative way out from such a situation is proving that the other side had violated Art. 1 of the Civil Code, which states that all sides must “act in Good Faith”. The clarification of the Supreme Court on this issue states: “Evaluating the actions of the sides as being in Good Faith or not the behaviour of the side must be evaluated in relation to such behaviour as would be normally expected from any participant of a civil action who would take into consideration the rights and legal interests of the other party, would assist it including assistance in obtaining the necessary information”.This means that if the other side had deliberately included a clause that should not normally be expected to be there and had not assisted the other side in finding, reading and understanding that (rather important) clause, it would be possible to prove in court that the party was not acting in good faith. That would invalidate the contract and release the other side from obligations under it. In this case, however, burden of proof is on you. By deafult all sides are presumed to be acting in good faith, so you’ll need to prove to the judge that you could not have reasonably expected to have such a ridiculous clause in the contract, the contract is too long and you were (delibertely) not given enough time to read it thoroughly and so on. It will ultimately be up to the court to decide on the issue. The decision of course will depend on the nature of the contract and also on the circumstance of the signing and on the quantity of information the other side can prove it had given you prior to signing etc. - for example the letters/e-mails you had exchanged and so on. But it seems quite probable that a clause like this will be invalidated by the court - after all it’s not really reasonable to assume that the person had indeed truly intended to pass on all of one’s savings to another party. However, if it makes sense in the context of the contract (for example the other party in return undertakes you to feed and clothe you till the end of your days) the clause may be upheld by the court. That will cause a next set of problems, however, as if the other side had promised to provide something in return, which makes it a supply contract or possibly a barter contract, which have rule sets of their own.BOTTOM LINE: do note how my answer is closely based on exact wording of local legislation. In other countries that wording as well as court practice would be significantly different, so my answer wouldn’t mean anything.So it’s always a good idea to indicate what country you’re talking about when asking legal questions like that.