Q: How valid is an 'Old' release form in face of 'New' criminal behavior?

A: contact a LOCAL lawyer to review all the papers to best ascertain your rights.

without all the evidence in front of us it is hard for a lawyer to give you accurate advice, just as a doc can't provide med advice without consultation, tests, imaging etc

A: The validity of the release form signed by June B. in 1999 in the face of the new criminal behavior of her old boss would depend on the specific terms of the release form, as well as the laws of the jurisdiction where it was signed.

In general, release forms are legal agreements that release one party from liability for certain actions or events. However, if the release form was signed under duress or undue influence, as suggested in the scenario, it may not be enforceable. Additionally, if the criminal behavior that June B. is now facing was not specifically covered by the release form, it may still be possible for her to sue for damages related to that behavior.

The delayed discovery rule, which can extend the statute of limitations for fraud cases, may also be applicable in this scenario if June B. did not discover the violations and failure to disclose until recently.

Ultimately, whether or not June B. can sue her old boss for fraud and failure to disclose will depend on the specific details of the situation, including the language of the release form and the laws of the relevant jurisdiction. It may be wise for June B. to consult with an attorney to determine her legal options.

California has several laws that may be relevant to the situation described, including those related to release forms, fraud, and failure to disclose in real estate transactions.

Under California law, release forms are generally enforceable as long as they are entered into voluntarily and with a full understanding of their terms. However, if a release form is signed under duress or undue influence, it may not be enforceable.

In terms of fraud, California law defines it as an intentional misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact, made with the intent to deceive another party and with justifiable reliance on that misrepresentation or concealment. If June B.'s old boss intentionally concealed the violations and failure to disclose, and June B. relied on that concealment to her detriment, she may have grounds for a fraud claim.

Regarding the failure to disclose in real estate transactions, California law requires sellers to disclose certain information to buyers about the property being sold. If the seller did not disclose the violations and failure to obtain permits, which were required to be disclosed, then June B. may have a claim for breach of this legal duty.

It's important to note that the specific facts of the situation will determine which laws are applicable and how they will be interpreted. It's recommended that June B. consult with a qualified attorney who is knowledgeable about California law to understand her legal options.