This sounds like a very complicated case of blackmail, to me. Don't judges have the right to kick plaintiffs in the butt for pulling crap like that? Maybe only Judge Wapner could get away with doing that.
Natter 34: Freak With No Name
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
I have a question. Let's say one is looking for a bunch of toggle switches cheap for a purely non-functional use. Where could one get a bunch really cheap?
you can get 10 on ebay for probably a buck.
It just seems like that if they were litigating something he felt they had an agreement on, he had an incentive to litigate it.
No, the landlord's attorney told my client they wanted to terminate the lease. My client told him there was no lease. Landlord's attorney had court date posted on door of business which new owners forwarded to my client. My client figured, there's no reason to go to fight against a non-existent lease termination.
It would be like me filing an eviction action against bon bon for failing to pay rent on my basement. Since bon bon's never been to my house, much less rented my basement, why should she show up to court to defend herself against the action? Does that prove that until April 6, 2005 she was a tenant of mine?
You might want to look around for flea markets in your area, Gud.
You might want to look around for flea markets in your area
That's a good idea.
Thanks, Wolfram.
It really does boil down to "he's a wanker," doesn't it?
Don't judges have the right to kick plaintiffs in the butt for pulling crap like that?
Only in Australia. With the Boot.
You might want to look around for flea markets in your area, Gud.
Some stores specialize in selling used electronics, including parts like switches.
I see what you're saying, Wolfram, and it makes sense on equitable grounds. But I suspect the case law on either the property law issues or the res judicata issues will be rather inequitable.
I mean, taking the long view, I can see a rule like: regardless of what you believe the merits of an action to be, if you don't fight it and it doesn't go your way you takes your chances. It all seems to turn on your client's view that there's no lease to fight. I don't think you can adopt the rule that if your client thinks there's no issue, but the court thinks there is an issue, that ruling shouldn't be given binding effect.
I don't have a stake in this, I just think you should be careful.