Cruising Sailors Forum Archive
So many misstatements of fact and law
In Response To: Of course you are being facetious, a judge decides your liability based on what's in the fine print 
()
() It's silly to continue because the merits pale in comparison to a slur about an "attorney with a history " whatever that means...probably it means pretty effective one in a case prejudged to be without merit by the writer.
Messages In This Thread
- C'mon, we all knew it was just a matter of time, right...?
- A case if the case "doesn't ring true"?
- Think they have a case
- Apparently this has happened to others with satphones
- "We" is a group that detest's the Kaufmans. I'm not in that group.
- There is a thin line between success and failure.
- I'm with you tom. While I think the Kaufmans
- I'm not part of the group that "detests the Kaufmanns", either...
- There is a thin line between success and failure.
- Comment at the end of news the piece said...
- As I said above, I wouldn't
- They want money too...
- "certainly no attorney..would take on a contingency"
- An attorney perhaps ?
- Actually for me, I wondered why they scuttled the boat?
- The service was turn OFF, it did not fail, that where I have a problem.
- So a business can decide it's liability, just by putting it in the fine print?
- Of course you are being facetious, a judge decides your liability based on what's in the fine print
- So many misstatements of fact and law
- Must be frustrating to see the "all lawyers are,..." generalization mire what's going on here.
- "would you buy a plan from them and head out into the Pacific?" - that is the crux of it...
- Gee I just hope the manufacture has the balls
- REBEL HEART'S prolific blogging might come back to haunt them...
- Ooops, a couple of examples, courtesy of a poster on CF...
- Blog; rambling personal diary, opinion,fiction,unedited,...often boring zzz....
- Gee I just hope the manufacture has the balls
- "would you buy a plan from them and head out into the Pacific?" - that is the crux of it...
- Must be frustrating to see the "all lawyers are,..." generalization mire what's going on here.
- So many misstatements of fact and law
- Do you mean to tell me I paid liability insurance on my shops for 30 some years and didn't need too??
- Of course you are being facetious, a judge decides your liability based on what's in the fine print
- An attorney perhaps
- "certainly no attorney..would take on a contingency"
- What about insurance?
- As I said above, I wouldn't
- More light shed on the Kaufman case
- A case if the case "doesn't ring true"?