Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:14:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
384 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
<snip>
> Now, about frivolous lawsuits. They are certainly a problem. However,
> the solution is to make better property rights evaluations rather than
> try and limit lawsuits. Lawsuits are one of the fundamental protections
> of our property rights. There should be three fundamental results of
> filing a lawsuit (with shades between):
>
> 1. The plaintiff wins, and is compensated for the loss and the expense
> of filing the lawsuit.
> 2. The plaintiff loses, however, the lawsuit was judged to be necessary
> (because the conflicting property rights were not obvious), the expense
> of the lawsuit is shared between the plaintiff and the defendant.
> 3. The plaintiff loses and the lawsuit is judged unnecessary and the
> plaintiff is liable for the defendant's costs of the lawsuit.
Now if there was an addendum to all laws that says "You will get slapped
hard if we find that your lawsuit is frivilous", then I'm completely in
support of said measure. However, who deems the "frivilousity" value of
cases? Do we need another judicial branch that will come up with a
consensus on these cases--instead of appealing to a higher court if you
don't win, the defendant can appeal to thins new Upper Frivilous Court and
say it was an unwarranted case, and if he wins, the plaintiff gets hit with
a big fine.
Hmmm... I think we should implement that as soon as possible.
> In any result, anyone could be assessed additional penalties for wasting
> the peoples time (the court, the plaintiffs, or the defendants). A
> frivolous lawsuit would be one example. A lawsuit where Bill sues Dick
> because Dick refused to pay for the Ming vase he broke while visiting
> Bill because he hates Ming vases should result in a pendalty to Dick. A
> lawsuit that arises out of a very poorly worded contract should result
> in one or both parties being assesed a penalty (depending on how much
> responsibility each had for the contract - but I'm willing to hold both
> people responsible in all cases - if one wouldn't be responsible, I
> don't think you have a valid contract because someone is being coerced).
>
> (1) And since I assert that all rights are property rights, I assert
> that emotional attachment to a wife and kids is in fact a property
> right.
>
> Frank
Family is property? Or am i misunderstanding
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) No addendum needed, and mostly the system is already there. Judges do have a lot of flexibility. Unfortunately, over the years they have been given less flexibility. Also, countersuits already handle some of the problems. Mostly what has to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) Fundamentally, I see no problem whatsoever in animals having and being given property rights. As to what happens to the estate when Fido dies without issue? What happens when your kid who inherited your estate dies without issue? We have (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
