• theodewere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    … by the doctrine of avoidable consequences

    that’s official government talk for “you’re a dumbass on purpose”

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      And unclean hands, which is lawyer for “you did this to yourself”.

      And failure to mitigate, which is legalese for "and then you kept making it worse.

      And doctrine of laches, which is courtroom talk for “and then you proceeded to ignore the problem until is bit you in the ass, before you finally tried to sue.”

    • SeabassDan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      yes, I did everything notarized

      what matters is the judge’s ruling

      Notary’s milking these guys dry, and the judge only matters until they rule against this poor dude.

    • notabot@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Thanks for the extra details, I love their certainty the their process means there’s ‘no argument’. This guy’s going to get a fascinating leason in court.

    • yuriy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      He probably named them individually in the suit in addition to the company. One could argue he’s alleging that the named parties all personally engaged in towing his vehicle.

      • edgemaster72@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Classic SovCit “logic”, can’t be held responsible for their actions because that was the company set up in their name not their living person, but then tries to hold a company and other individual persons responsible for shit they don’t like

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s actually not that weird to do this. You just scattershot everyone involved and let them figure out who acted on behalf of whom. If you don’t, the company could just say “hey, these guys are self-employed and just lease our impound yard” and you’d have to file a whole new suit.

  • Prestron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Requesting dismissal with prejudice is just a great detail. If granted, and the plaintiff tries to bring another suit for the same events, they’ll basically be told to GTFO.

  • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    It’s always just a bunch of word salad.

    I sent them a memorandum to fineagle and reassess, along with my stamped proof of residual sentience, but they haven’t gotten back to me about my right to reconnoiter.