The background for this story is here: https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=315867
The trial was Monday. To prepare, I read a textbook about law in business. It helped tremendously; although, the advice of a lawyer would have provided further assistance.
I’m not going to go into details. I made pretty good arguments; I believe the law was on my side. Unfortunately, the judge limited my arguments to one which I had no interest in, nor had any intention of, arguing. I assume it is because of the way I worded my claim, months before.
In the judgement, the judge said it is a case of “fact” and not “law”. He said the facts are not in my favour and the misfortune was my own doing, but he deprived the defendant of costs in recognition of its error. This was very disappointing to me; I feel like I’m going to go down in history as the first person ever charged a 570% commission fee.
I suppose because it was a case of “fact” and not “law” you can probably get a different ruling, but it was still a bad day for consumers. This case gives precedence to online business to perform all sorts of trickery.
For some reason, although I don’t remember when, where, and by whom, I remember being told a way to force the court to deal with a case by “law” and not by “fact.” I also remember being told that when judges rule by “fact,” they rule however they want. Am I imagining things? What is this “fact” and “law” business?
The trial was Monday. To prepare, I read a textbook about law in business. It helped tremendously; although, the advice of a lawyer would have provided further assistance.
I’m not going to go into details. I made pretty good arguments; I believe the law was on my side. Unfortunately, the judge limited my arguments to one which I had no interest in, nor had any intention of, arguing. I assume it is because of the way I worded my claim, months before.
In the judgement, the judge said it is a case of “fact” and not “law”. He said the facts are not in my favour and the misfortune was my own doing, but he deprived the defendant of costs in recognition of its error. This was very disappointing to me; I feel like I’m going to go down in history as the first person ever charged a 570% commission fee.
I suppose because it was a case of “fact” and not “law” you can probably get a different ruling, but it was still a bad day for consumers. This case gives precedence to online business to perform all sorts of trickery.
For some reason, although I don’t remember when, where, and by whom, I remember being told a way to force the court to deal with a case by “law” and not by “fact.” I also remember being told that when judges rule by “fact,” they rule however they want. Am I imagining things? What is this “fact” and “law” business?