Timeline for Can someone be compelled to prove they are complying with a contract? (If contract doesn't stipulate such proving)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 20, 2020 at 21:40 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | I don't have a question about lawyers whatsoever, and I don't know what makes you think I have ever paid or hired one. I know, though, your cheering for lawyers will not persuade defrauded clients like those in the news report. That said, I agree that delving too much about lawyers' profitable business departs from the OP's question. So does, for instance, your extended chain of "predictions" of what will happen in the OP's matter. | |
| May 20, 2020 at 18:43 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @IñakiViggers Surely you must see where your thing about lawyers overcharging is a bolt-out-of-the-blue, seems like a rant, and has nothing to do with this Q&A. We've both paid lawyers but I've had different experience I guess. I've overseen about $100k of lawyer expense in the last 10 years, half of that out of my pocket. I've had disagreements on billing, but we haggled and it was settled mostly in my favor. If you have a question about lawyer overcharging, ask a question, and we can have a Q&A there. | |
| May 20, 2020 at 10:13 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | "As for "milking clients", now who's speculating and making wild statements?" That is the unfortunate reality of the legal "profession". Watch this. Any allegation in the sense that those are "isolated" cases is naive. "I'll let you have the clerk/reject issue, but I would remind you clerks work for judges". That statement of yours is not an argument of how the law is, and in any case it is at odds with your inaccuracy that docketing of cases depends on the clerk's discretion as to which disputes "will probably sort themselves out". | |
| May 20, 2020 at 1:32 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 49 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2020 at 1:27 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 49 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2020 at 1:15 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 55 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2020 at 1:05 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | To think further on the "must drop the suit" issue, pursuing injunctive relief for a one-time solved problem looks, walks and quacks like legal bullying/harassment even without COVID. That'll get you sanctioned in California. And if I say "the car works, I drive it to church every Sunday", you look completely insane. I can leverage that into costs. I probably won't get vexatious litigant, but I'll sure ask. | |
| May 20, 2020 at 0:32 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @IñakiViggers I'll let you have the clerk/reject issue, but I would remind you clerks work for judges, and judges will sit down with staff and figure out how to shed load at times like these. Injunctive relief might be called for if the violation were pervasive/repeated, but OP does not indicate that, so bringing it up would seem ... speculative. As for "milking clients", now who's speculating and making wild statements? ;) | |
| May 20, 2020 at 0:30 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2020 at 22:09 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | This answer is very speculative and makes several wildly inaccurate statements. A court clerk will not reject filings simply because these relate to coronavirus or because he speculates the disputes "will probably sort themselves out".Your assumption that the board would be "obliged to drop the suit" mistakenly discards the possibility that the board might seek injunctive relief to prevent a re-occurrence of defendant's violation. Your assumption that defense counsel "may well quit" due to client's stubbornness ignores that many lawyers milk their clients for as long as it is profitable. | |
| May 19, 2020 at 21:42 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 36 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2020 at 21:26 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 514 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2020 at 21:09 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1693 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2020 at 19:50 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 598 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2020 at 19:44 | history | answered | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |