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.
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.
Yeah, that's what it really boils down to. Just because he had opportunity to fight, does that mean he had to fight? How much does the potential outcome matter?
Maybe Stephanie's notes will point me in the right direction. This issue/claim preclusion stuff is almost as bad as the rule against perpetuities.
Sorry to burden the board with boring law stuff.
Sorry to burden the board with boring law stuff.
I find this stuff fascinating, as long as I don't have to pass a test on it or have it directly affect me.
This issue/claim preclusion stuff is almost as bad as the rule against perpetuities.
Ha! I'm actually working on conflict of laws cases and the procedural/substantive distinction. MAN there was a lot of fucking awful doctrines to learn and then forget in law school. I think conflict of laws was my least favorite thing ever.
