you can record your conversation all you want. You cannot record the conversation of others without permission and that person you are having a conversation with is "another". If you can figure out how to record only your part of the conversation, then by all means, go for it. I'm just having a hard time figuring out how to actually do that though.Mr. Knowitall;740566]So now you're agreeing with the interpretation of the eavesdropping statute? If you record your own conversation, it's not the conversation of others?
well, of course since that is the basis of your position.I would be more sympathetic to your argument if the landlord in the case we're discussing held a security deposit.
I just read the statute as applying to damages regardless of whether it is countered by a deposit or not. Obviously, unless I end up in court for such a matter, my perspective is truly irrelevant and I must accept the current standing of the law, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.
I do appreciate the corrections though and especially your explanations and listening to my attempts to defend my position.
has anybody thought about trashing the entire MCL and starting over? I understand a courts position in clarification but dang, many of these are so muddy to start with, a court, in my opinion should start sending bills to the guys that drafted some of that stuff due to the time required to fix their messes.Your comment on MCL 554.613 reflects more bad drafting, and it becomes necessary to read into the language an effective stay of the 45 day rule once litigation has been commenced. An argument can be made (and has been by the Michigan Supreme Court) that it's not the court's job to fix legislative mistakes of this type, although I'm not sure how diligently they adhere to that principle, and I haven't tried to determine if that particular tension has actually been litigated.



