Calendar

December 2016
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
 << <Jul 2017> >>
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Announce

Who's Online?

Member: 0
Visitor: 1

rss Syndication

Posts sent on: 2001-01-01

21 Mar 2017 
Hyundai Unveils New Ioniq Electric Trim In South Korea That Costs Only ~$16,300 (After Incentives) | CleanTechnica

Cars

Published on March 20th, 2017 |by James Ayre

0

Hyundai Unveils New Ioniq Electric Trim In South Korea That Costs Only ~$16,300 (After Incentives)

March 20th, 2017 by James Ayre

Hyundai has unveiled a new Ioniq Electric trim option -- dubbed "I" -- in South Korea. The intent is to increase the rate of electric vehicle adoption, according to recent reports.



So, why would the new trim option increase the rate of electric vehicle (EV) adoption? Because it's relatively cheap, only running buyers 18.4 million won (~$16,300) after government incentives there are taken into account.

Before you ask, no, it's not clear yet if the new trim will end up being offered in the US and Europe as well. Though, if it does end up being offered in those markets, then sales there will presumably see a nice uptick.

Hyundai Ioniq Electric sales in South Korea in 2016 reportedly totaled 3,749 units -- apparently, that's plumbing code questions and answers around 63% of the total EV market. Considering those numbers, as compared against the country's population figures, it seems pretty clear why the company is now offering a more aggressively priced version of the Ioniq Electric -- there's a lot of potential and an almost completely untapped market there. (Notably, the how to repair shower plumbing model only launched in 2016, and wasn't available the full year.)

The unveiling of the new trim took place at the recent 4th International Electric Vehicle Expo, which was held at the Yeomiji Botanic Garden of Jungmun Resort in Jeju Island, South Korea.

Push EVs provides more: "The South Korean carmaker launched the Ioniq Electric with two trims 'Q' and 'N' in June last year... In Europe the price difference between the hybrid and electric variants of the Hyundai IONIQ is roughly EUR10,000, which is nonsense, considering that the electric variant is much simpler to build and the small LG Chem battery doesn't justify this huge price difference."

There are of course other factors involved in pricing (for different markets) than merely production cost, though -- such as the price people are willing to pay.

See our in-depth review of the Hyundai Ioniq Electric for more on this hot car.

Buy a cool T-shirt or mug in the CleanTechnica store!

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech daily newsletter or weekly newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on(Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to Press This! (Opens in new window)

Tags: Hyundai, Hyundai Ioniq Electric, South Korea



About the Author

James Ayre 's background is predominantly in geopolitics and history, but he has an plumbing parts store obsessive interest in pretty much everything. After an early life spent in the Imperial Free City of Dortmund, James followed the river Ruhr to Cofbuokheim, where he attended the University of Astnide. And where he also briefly considered entering the coal mining business. He currently writes for a living, on a broad variety of subjects, ranging from science, to politics, to military history, to renewable energy. You can follow his work on Google+.

Related Posts

Chevrolet Bolt Now Available For Order In South Korea ->

US Electric Car Sales Up 68% In February ->

7,000 Solar Train Stations ... Self-Driving Car Evolution ... 100% Wind Electricity In Denmark ... Tesla Model 3 Updates (Top CleanTechnica Stories of the Week) ->

Renault Zoe Starts 2017 Strong -- #1 In Europe, Followed By BMW i3, Nissan LEAF, & VW Passat GTE ->
Admin · No views · Leave a comment
07 Feb 2017 
While some of these situations are actually committing DUI, what about the others where it seemingly does not make sense, especially if it seems like the responsible thing to do? The answer lies in the elements that the prosecution uses in proving DUI:



They have to be under the influence of alcohol or another substance;

Their driving ability has been affected enough to be considered dangerous, or their BAC (from blood, breath, and urine tests) has reached or exceeded 0.08%;

They were driving or have actual physical control of a vehicle motor vehicle

The third element, actual physical control, is interpreted differently by each state. Usually, the dui consequences defendant has to be driving a vehicle, which is proven if the police or a witness has seen them, but other states include having "in physical control" of a vehicle, but what does that mean?



Per NRS 484C.110, actual physical control means that it does not matter that they were not driving the car as long as they still have the ability to drive, even if they have no intention of doing so. Exact definitions for actual physical control varies, but a notable case (Rogers v. State) has outlined the following factors that constitute if a person has actual physical control of the car:

If the vehicle's engine was running or not. Even if you were just using it for the air conditioner, the court reasons that you can start driving at any time.

How warm the engine is, which shows that the vehicle was running earlier.

The location of the keys. The worse thing that could happen is the police finding you with the keys in the ignition.

The defendant's position in the vehicle. The size of the vehicle also plays a part in this, which is particularly important for large vehicles or vehicles with sleeping areas like campers.

Where the vehicle is parked. The reason behind this is that, if the person was apprehended at the side of the road where they were parked, and the BAC results show that they exceed the limit, then it stands to reason that they have driven there while drinking.

Are the vehicle's headlights on? This is especially important if the defendant was apprehended during the night.

Were they trying to move the vehicle, aside from driving it? The reasoning behind this is they are still "controlling" the vehicle if for example, they were pushing it around. This can actually be more dangerous than if they were behind the wheel.

Is the property that the vehicle is located on is public or private? There's less of an offense if they were allegedly driving (or not driving) in their own private property.

Does the defendant own the vehicle?

Do they have any passengers or other potential driver? Sometimes the police are convinced that the "drunk one" was driving, even if it was their sober friend was actually the driver. Erratic driving or reports might be the reasoning for their suspicion.

Adding to the complication is the fact that each case is different. The best way to avoid this problem in the first place is to get as far away from your vehicle as possible whenever you are intoxicated and get a taxi, a designated driver, or a friend to take you home. Even if it's inconvenient or costly for you, it's a small price to pay than fighting the case in court. If it still happened and you dui drysuits were charged with DUI, the only thing you can do now is to contact a DUI defense attorney and fight your case for you. They are all too familiar with cases like this, and they know the best ways to argue the case in your favor.
Admin · No views · Leave a comment
06 Feb 2017 
Want to own a little piece of heaven? It's yours, starting at $19.99 an acre--on the moon. If you prefer, you can buy property on Venus or Mercury.



Mercury is nice this time of year. The temperature tops 700 degrees but they say it's a dry heat.

If that's still too close to the hustle and bustle of Earth, there's Mars--33.9 million miles from Times Square. A deed, with your name on it, to a prime-view one acre lot on Mars will set you back $22.49, plus tax, plus shipping (not from Mars) and handling.

The man selling these lots is Dennis Hope, founder and owner of Lunar Embassy Corp of Gardnerville, Nev., which claims to hold the property rights to several heavenly bodies. How many? "Nine altogether," says Hope brightly. "When we started, Pluto was still considered a planet."

That was 1968. At the time, Hope was unemployed, hadn't worked for a year, was getting divorced and lived in San Francisco. Things looked bad. He remembers thinking that if only he only had property, things might be better. "Then I saw the moon," he recalls. "I thought, there's a lot of property up there."

He discovered that little stood between him and ownership--hardly more than stood between proud Cortez and, say, and Mexico, once the intrepid Spaniard had taken a shine to it.

Hope consulted what was--and is--the governing document of outer space, the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the shortsale Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies," known for short as the Outer Space Treaty.

While the Treaty explicitly forbids the nations of Earth from making territorial claims on how long does a short sale take other planets, it does not address what claims might legally be made by private companies--a possibility not imagined in 1968.

Hope asked three lawyers whether or not he could assert development rights to the moon.

Two told him they didn't know. The third said, "Oh, sure, why not?" Hope was off and running. He has never received, he says, a challenge to his right to sell space real estate from any terrestrial government.

From peddling moon acreage, Hope branched out to the other properties in his nine-planet portfolio.

It's the moon that's been his biggest seller to date. Why? "You can look at it," he points out. "It's all view property." Still, by his own estimate, he has sold only about 7.5 percent of the moon so far--"600 million and 11 acres." That compares to his having sold just 325 million acres of Mars.

Planetary properties he has sold range in size from a single acre, on up to nation-sized parcels. The buyers of the biggest parcels, he claims, have included 1,800 corporations, including two leading U.S. hotel chains. "The very biggest property we've sold was 2.66 million acres. We sold that for $45,000. Today, that same parcel could run you $2.66 million."

Hope has drafted a lunar constitution. As the moon's representative, he says, he has established relations with some 30 earthly nations. He has issued a lunar currency and has made overtures for the moon to join the International Monetary Fund.

As Hope's website makes clear, he is far from being an unscrupulous salesman. There are things--23 of them, to be precise--he will not sell, for any price.

These include, on the moon, the Apollo landing sites.

On Mars, sites not for sale and off limits are addressed under the Frequently Asked Questions portion of Hope's website, which asks:

"Can I Buy The Face on Mars?"



The property referred to is a topographical feature photographed by NASA. Early images of the parcel showed what appeared to be a giant rock formation in the shape of a human face, with pyramid-shaped structures nearby it. One faction of space enthusiasts has argued that these features are the work of intelligent life. NASA's position is that the face and the pyramids are illusions cast by shadow.

Explains Hope's website:

"Unfortunately, certain places on Mars are not for sale because we firmly believe that they should remain for the good of all Mankind. This includes the famous "Face on Mars," as well as the "Pyramids on Mars." It would be irresponsible of the Lunar Embassy to sell these historic areas of general interest."
Admin · No views · Leave a comment
25 Jan 2017 
WASHINGTON -- Since demand for temporary workers has been on the rise since the recession, staffing agencies have played an increasingly important role in helping jobless Americans find work. Some worker advocates say job-seekers should be wary.

The number of temporary workers in the United States on any given day jumped to an average of 2.6 million in the third quarter of 2010, about 25 percent higher than the same period a year earlier, according to the American Staffing Association, the trade group representing such firms. The Department of Labor reported last week that staffing firms have added about 25,000 jobs to the economy in each of the past 12 months.

In an uncertain economy, employers are more likely to hire temporary and contract workers because it's easier to let those workers go when they can no longer afford them. But George Wentworth, a senior staff attorney for the National Employment Law Project, a worker-advocacy nonprofit, said job applicants should be careful when using staffing firms and temp agencies.

"A huge portion of the job growth in the last year has been in the temporary help sector, because employers are using the temporary industry as a device for trying out workers," Wentworth said. "The bottom line is that you have to be really careful with these kinds of firms. There's a growing detachment between job applicants and the ultimate employer that will be hiring you, so when there are headhunters or firms that are acting as an intermediary and taking some sort of cut, workers just need to be absolutely certain they're getting assurance from an employer and not just an entity that isn't going to have a long-term investment in the workers future."

Wentworth said staffing firms that promise full-time work after a certain period can often stretch those terms without recourse, as their unemployed clients are too desperate for work to speak up.

"There are abuses in many of these industries where employers try to keep somebody on a, quote, 'temporary' for periods of time far longer than you'd expect for a temp job, but in this economy, workers are less likely to complain," he said. "And the temp agencies are pretty much unregulated, so workers are on their own having to bring contract action."

One Colorado man, however, is not only speaking up but is suing Aerotek, a major international employment firm. Robert Koehler, 46, alleges that the company interviewed him for and later offered him a full-time position, told him to immediately quit his current temporary job and then failed to deliver the position he was promised.

Koehler said he has been working temporary manufacturing jobs on and off since he was laid off in June 2008. In July 2010, he responded to a Craigslist ad for a temp-to-hire job as a pharmaceutical production technician that would have paid him more than twice what he was currently making.

"I thought, maybe this is it, maybe I finally found a job after applying constantly everywhere, I won't have to get by on $10 an hour with no benefits anymore," he told HuffPost.

Koehler said a recruiter for Aerotek called him immediately and sent him out to interview with the client, a pharmaceutical company in Broomfield, Colo., after which he was almost immediately offered the job.

"Aerotek called me the same day and said I was hired and directory that they wanted me to start as soon as possible," he said. "I had to come in the very next day and do all the paperwork, give blood, do a physical drug test, a seven-year criminal background check. They said it was a sure thing."

According to Koehler, an Aerotek recruiter then told him he needed to quit his current job by July 23 so he could start his new position the following Monday. But immediately after putting in his two weeks' notice, Koehler says, the Aerotek recruitment agent entirely stopped responding to him about the position. He says his start date came and went, and it wasn't until read the full info here about a week later that an Aerotek recruiter finally called him back and told him that there was no longer a job for him.

Unfortunately, by quitting his temporary job, Koehler lost his eligibility for unemployment benefits. He said he has not been able to land a job since, despite constantly applying, and his $105-a-week emergency benefits ran out this week.

"I'm so far behind, it's horrible," he said. "They've destroyed my life. I can't pay my bills, I can't do anything now. I maxed out our credit cards, used up our savings, borrowed money from one of my sisters, donate plasma twice a week for money and am using the remainder of our federal tax return to survive."

Aerotek said in a statement that it didn't do anything wrong in Koehler's case.

"Our policy is that at no time do we offer a position until the screening and/or testing process is complete. While we understand that Mr. Koehler has some issues regarding his interaction with our Denver, Colorado, office, we are comfortable that we handled the situation properly," an Aerotek spokesperson said.

Koehler isn't alone, however. Job-seekers have logged a plethora of complaints about Aerotek on websites such as www.pissedconsumer.com, a review site for products and services. One man claims Aerotek hired him, allowed him to work in a position for four months and then fired him without explanation a day before he would have been eligible for unemployment benefits.

"Thanks Aerotek, hope that little bit of money you're getting is worth taking the food off my kids' plates!" he wrote.

Richard Wahlquist, president and CEO of the American Staffing Association, told HuffPost

he is skeptical of these kinds of complaints because it is in the staffing firm's financial interest to place all of its clients.

"Staffing firms only are able to get income from their clients if they make placements, so they have a powerful incentive to put everybody to work," he said. "Of course, if you've got 10 million people coming through your doors every year, there's are gonna be some with grievances, but Allegis [Aerotek's parent company] is actually the largest staffing firm in America. They provide employment across a lot of different sectors, they've got a really strong track record, and they're proud of what they do."




Admin · No views · Leave a comment
06 Jan 2017 
In early 1993, Getting Down to Cases described a case where a mistake which was made in a foreclosure sale was later rectified by the court. The discussion of that case, Crossland Mortgage Corp. v. Frankel, reported in the New York Law Journal on October 1, 1992, dealt with an error which occurred at the foreclosure sale resulting from the bank's representative failing to make a bid in accordance to his instructions.

What happened was that Mr. Buchman, who was simply an observer at the foreclosure sale, realized that when the bank's representative made a bid of only $34,000 where the mortgage being foreclosed was approximately $200,000, he immediately made a higher bid of $55,000. The bank's representative, who actually received instructions to start his bidding at $160,000, made a mistake by bidding the much lower amount and not raising his bid.

Since Mr. Buchman was unprepared to make a bid, he asked the referee for time to go to his bank to secure a certified check for the downpayment deposit. The referee granted him that time. In the interim the bank's representative checked with his office and realized that he had made a mistake with his bidding and advised the referee to that effect. He requested that the referee re-open the sale, which the referee agreed to do. The property was then struck down to the bank at its $160,000 bid.

When Mr. Buchman sought to have the court declare him to be the successful bidder, the court ultimately ruled that he was not entitled to the property. The court stated that although the sale at foreclosure will not ordinarily be disturbed where it was fairly made and free from fraud, a judicial sale may be set aside when someone obtained an undue advantage or where a party was unfairly dealt with. The court also noted that a judicial foreclosure sale may also be set aside if there was an excusable mistake, particularly if such mistake caused the property to bring a much lower price that it otherwise would have. While a mistake by itself would not be grounds to set aside a foreclosure sale, if the mistake caused an inadequacy of price, a foreclosure sale might be set aside.

In the Crossland case, the court ruled that the price of $55,000 was "inadequate" compared property and homes for sale to the value of the property, which was conceded by all parties to be $200,000. This price inadequacy, coupled with the mistake that was made by the lender's representative, was the basis for the court's denying the property to Buchman.

The issue of dealing with a mistake in a foreclosure sale is revisited by Charles F. Curry Co. v. Yodah Group Inc., (September 14, 1994), involving property in Rochester, NY. A judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered in the amount of $34,000. A referee was appointed by the court to sell the property. The foreclosure sale took place on February 25, 1994.

At the sale, the referee opened the bidding and Charles F. Curry Co. bid $100. There were no other bids and the property was struck down for that amount. However, the referee expressed reservations about the absence of the lender at the sale and requested that the bidder wait until the referee contacted the lender. The referee was advised by the lender's attorneys that the defaulted loan had been reinstated and that the foreclosure sale had been canceled. A message to that effect was left at the referee's office.



The referee then determined that because his authority to complete the foreclosure sale was in question, he refused to accept the bidder's deposit and declined to execute a memorandum of sale. The bidder stated that he regarded the sale as valid and complete. A lawsuit was then started by the mortgagee to declare the foreclosure sale to be invalid.

Justice Thomas A. Stander, of the Supreme Court of Monroe County, first considered the question as to whether or not the foreclosure sale was valid. He stated that while the sale was properly scheduled in accordance with a judgment of foreclosure and sale, with proper publication by the referee, and with proper procedure at the sale, a referee has certain flexibility to meet unforseen circumstances that might otherwise jeopardize the success of a foreclosure sale. A "sale" of the property does not occur until the officer conducting the sale executes a referee's deed to the purchaser.

Under the circumstances involved in this case, Justice Stander ruled that a valid foreclosure sale did not take place.

The court then examined whether the foreclosure sale, if it had been determined to be valid, should be vacated and set aside anyway, on other grounds.



The court noted that if, in addition to a mere disparity in price, there is a lack of equity or fairness, such as fraud or exploitation or overreaching, a court may grant relief.

Mere inadequacy of price does not provide sufficient grounds for vacating a foreclosure sale. Only where the price is so low as to shock the conscience of the court will the sale be vacated. In New York State, foreclosure sales at prices below 10 percent of the value of the property have consistently been held to be unconscionably low.

Justice Stander then reviewed the question as to whether the foreclosure sale price of $100 is so low as to shock the conscience of the court. The judgment of foreclosure was for $34,000.

Evidence was submitted however of fire damage to the property prior to the sale and that the property was in the process of renovation.

Since there was no proof submitted as to the precise value of the property on the date of the foreclosure sale, it could not be conclusively determined that the bid of $100 was less than 10 percent of the value of the property. However, based upon other evidence before the court, Justice Stander concluded that there was an enormous disparity between the bid amount and short sale vs foreclosure the value of the property.

In this case, because the property was sold for a shockingly inadequate price, coupled with the mistake made by the referee and the mortgagee as to the cancellation of the sale, equity and fairness demands that the foreclosure sale be vacated and set aside.

Thus, the judge ruled that no valid foreclosure sale took place, since the referee's deed was not executed, nor did the referee accept the deposit from the bidder. The court further ruled that even if a valid foreclosure sale did take place, it would have been set aside because there was a shocking disparity between the price and the property's value, coupled with an honest mistake made by the referee, as well as the mortgagee, in holding the sale in the first place.

While the court has inherent equitable power over a judicial foreclosure sale, that power is exercised sparingly and with great caution. However, a court may set aside its own judicial sale in order to relieve an oppressive or unfair result.

(Edward L. Schiff is senior partner in the law firm of Schiff, Turek, Kirschenbaum, O'Connell, LLP of New York City.)
Admin · No views · Leave a comment

1, 2, 3 ... 16 ... 32  Next page