i dont know if the late first hearing date has any
Post# of 15187
Posted On: 01/14/2016 1:59:22 PM
Re: Goodspeed65 #1931
i dont know if the late first hearing date has anything to do with forcing a settlement/mediation or more to do with the backlog but either way - plenty of time for back and forth. on the flip side - it extends the time for a potential answer for shareholders and the company to be able to focus on the core business.
what i was most interested in was the lack of demand for jury trial. when i have been involved in suits and felt pretty strongly that i had a compelling argument, i ALWAYS wanted a jury trial so that legal wranglings and attorney dances could be mitigated by appealing to the sensibility of "normal" people. granted, the jury selection process nullifies a lot of that but to me, it suggests they believe they can game the system and circumvent due process by a jury of peers.
if it was me responding, i would demand a jury trial (pay the fee) and start appealing to the average Joe out there if they think this type of "negotiation" or contract should be considered good faith by both parties. there is a reason loan sharking is illegal. when people are desperate to survive (whether personally, financially, or their business), the priority is survival and then they figure out the rest and how to pay for what or when. that is when they are most vulnerable and the courts and our society said that it is not moral, ethical, or legal to take advantage of people in that state regardless of whether they "signed the contract." the only argument by lenders is they signed and understood the contract. i am not sure how they are going to prove they understood it but that is besides the point. the key is to get 12 people there that consider that a binding agreement.
what i was most interested in was the lack of demand for jury trial. when i have been involved in suits and felt pretty strongly that i had a compelling argument, i ALWAYS wanted a jury trial so that legal wranglings and attorney dances could be mitigated by appealing to the sensibility of "normal" people. granted, the jury selection process nullifies a lot of that but to me, it suggests they believe they can game the system and circumvent due process by a jury of peers.
if it was me responding, i would demand a jury trial (pay the fee) and start appealing to the average Joe out there if they think this type of "negotiation" or contract should be considered good faith by both parties. there is a reason loan sharking is illegal. when people are desperate to survive (whether personally, financially, or their business), the priority is survival and then they figure out the rest and how to pay for what or when. that is when they are most vulnerable and the courts and our society said that it is not moral, ethical, or legal to take advantage of people in that state regardless of whether they "signed the contract." the only argument by lenders is they signed and understood the contract. i am not sure how they are going to prove they understood it but that is besides the point. the key is to get 12 people there that consider that a binding agreement.
(0)
(0)