|
After reading all this hoopla, I would say the following: Regardless of whether or not you like the fact that the woman is pursuing this lawsuit or not, or whether you would do the same thing, any misgivings you may have of a cynical nature, or your feelings about expecting something for nothing, the woman would seem to have a strong legal case. Ergo, the dismissal of the DJ, the offer of 5 grand (I do mean $5,000 btw) etc.
I personally do not expect something for nothing, but shit - if I can get it I'll take it. All you naysayers are actually telling me that if someone walked up to you on the street, and offered you $100,000 in cash right there, you wouldn't take it? Being as cynical as all get out, looking around for cameras, etc - you wouldn't take $100,000 for shits and giggles? Hell, I would. Try me.
Second of all, it's a bad policy, in general, to let businesses get away with this kind of shady misrepresentation, or questionable description if you will, for the reasons outlined by several posters above. That's why it's illegal. Think of what would happen if every business deal you entered into had to be meticulously torn apart, above and beyond the normal amount required for loopholes and whatnot within reasonably normal interpretations of the terminology used, but also to figure out how many different alternative interpretations could also be valid? Everything would slow down super duper fast. I'm no contract lawyer, but I know several of them - and every time this kind of horseshit comes up the plaintiff wins. The alternative is not acceptable. I doubt she'll get the full 100k, but she will win the case.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|