okay you have a point. but our legal system is very different from the US that in most cases it doesn't pay to get into major legal battles here because even if you win the outcome is never that great.
okay you have a point. but our legal system is very different from the US that in most cases it doesn't pay to get into major legal battles here because even if you win the outcome is never that great.
I wonder how different they could be, since both are derived from the English Common Law.
I wonder how different they could be, since both are derived from the English Common Law.
Note that the "loser pays" system in frequently referred to as the "English rule" whereas the our system is frequently called the "American rule" even though our system is derived from English Common Law. Also worth noting is that most (perhaps all) of the other countries whose legal system is based on English Common Law employs "loser pays".
Note that the "loser pays" system in frequently referred to as the "English rule" whereas the our system is frequently called the "American rule" even though our system is derived from English Common Law. Also worth noting is that most (perhaps all) of the other countries whose legal system is based on English Common Law employs "loser pays".
I realize that, but I also know that in the US courts, it's up to a judge to decide who should pay costs, so our system is more properly called "loser sometimes pays." I was only pointing out that any claim that the legal systems are very different is something of an exaggeration.
I realize that, but I also know that in the US courts, it's up to a judge to decide who should pay costs, so our system is more properly called "loser sometimes pays." I was only pointing out that any claim that the legal systems are very different is something of an exaggeration.
It was mentioned in the article I linked. In the US, the defendant sometimes gets hit with the legal fees for the plaintiff (depending on state). The plaintiff rarely gets stuck paying the legal fees of the defendant and, therein, lies the inequity and the opportunity for plaintiffs to "go big' in their claims.
In the linked article (which you felt was mostly supporting a political position), it was explained how costs are frequently apportioned between plaintiff and defendant based on which points of law are proven. Overstating your case can actually cost you money even if you win.
The following is a more current article dealing with the issue although it is written by the same person. It does clarify a few points:
It was mentioned in the article I linked. In the US, the defendant sometimes gets hit with the legal fees for the plaintiff (depending on state). The plaintiff rarely gets stuck paying the legal fees of the defendant and, therein, lies the inequity and the opportunity for plaintiffs to "go big' in their claims.
In the linked article (which you felt was mostly supporting a political position), it was explained how costs are frequently apportioned between plaintiff and defendant based on which points of law are proven. Overstating your case can actually cost you money even if you win.
The following is a more current article dealing with the issue although it is written by the same person. It does clarify a few points:
Well, if you're going to keep citing the same person, you're not going to get much of a range of views. Turns out, loser-pays is controversial in the UK, and its abolition has been called for.
I was responding to your claim that the legal systems are very different, rather than trying to argue that they are the same.
But they are very different. Anyway I am not even sure what you are talking about anymore, but whatever it is you clearly aren't that familiar with the differences between the Canadian and American judicial system. Also we don't have anywhere near as many lawsuits as you do in the US.
But they are very different. Anyway I am not even sure what you are talking about anymore, but whatever it is you clearly aren't that familiar with the differences between the Canadian and American judicial system. Also we don't have anywhere near as many lawsuits as you do in the US.
I'm not sure what you are talking about anymore either, so we're even. Yes, you could raise the bar on torts so high that only the wealthy could afford to file lawsuits. As I said before, some people would call that a good thing. If that's their goal, it would be fair for them to admit it, so at least we'd know what we are really discussing.
I'm not sure what you are talking about anymore either, so we're even. Yes, you could raise the bar on torts so high that only the wealthy could afford to file lawsuits. As I said before, some people would call that a good thing. If that's their goal, it would be fair for them to admit it, so at least we'd know what we are really discussing.
Ha ha good so we are. I am so far away from my original discussion that it's kind of comical. However, I am glad that we are having a fair minded discussion and not a match of insults. I take it that you feel that this is example of a frivolous lawsuit? I haven't read through all of your posts here so please forgive me. I originally took the view point that Apple may actually have chosen to use some questions materials for this phone. My thought process was the the following. A phone is highly portable and something that most people use all of the time. However we are clumsy and we drop things. Now by my way of thinking if you know that you are producing something that is more likely to get abused either by accident or other you would think that Apple would build in some extra toughness. Now maybe I am way off base here but doesn't that make sense? Now do I think that there has been such a problem that it warrants a lawsuit? No. Only Apple could really know how bad or good these phones are compared to previous models and obviously it will be addressed in a future model if that is the case. I also said that if you absolutely have to have a case on your phone then that shows that there is a flaw in the design of the phone. Any phone should be able to withstand some kind of damage. For example I was using a 3Gs last summer to film my son riding his bike anyway long story short he ended up getting out of control and rode right into me - the phone flew out of my hands and landed on the asphalt. There was a some damage to the case but other than that it was no worse for wear. I am not sure that my 4 would be so lucky in the same situation.
Anyway I am going on way to long here. I would like to hear what your thoughts on the matter. I think with the exception of a few people most people thought I was crazy to suggest this. I don't need to tell you though you can read through a few posts in here and you will get a pretty quick idea of how people feel.
In brief, I'd put it is this way: I think this lawsuit is at least a little silly on the face of it, but whether it's frivolous or meritorious is up to the courts to decide based on the facts and the law. That's why we have courts, and judges, and such. My contrary reaction comes when it seems to generate endless comments about how the legal system is utterly broken, for no other reason than a person can file a lawsuit they personally don't think should be filed. The next step in this illogical chain is to reduce access to the courts, as though that fixes the "problem" as they perceive it. The reality is, most of these "solutions" are designed to keep people of less means from filing lawsuits and are proposed by people who, whether they are honest about it or not, want this result.
Well, if you're going to keep citing the same person, you're not going to get much of a range of views. Turns out, loser-pays is controversial in the UK, and its abolition has been called for.
I quoted the same person because I thought the second article provided some additional and more up-to-date information. The article I originally cited mentioned that people have tried overturning "loser pays":
Quote:
Occasionally someone tries to change or get rid of loser-pays abroad, especially in English-speaking countries where American legal academics (and the fabulously successful American bar) are most influential. But thus far such efforts have only pointed up the rule's durability. Scholars in country after country are well aware of the American alternative and consciously reject it. And with reason: Public outcry over litigation rises to the heavens from our side of the Atlantic, not theirs. European parties have not made a stir lately by campaigning on the need to reform civil procedure, as the Republicans did here.
No one has yet overturned it because they see the American system as too adversarial and deleterious to cultural cohesiveness though there is some serious consideration to provide exceptions to "loser pays" in certain types of cases.
In brief, I'd put it is this way: I think this lawsuit is at least a little silly on the face of it, but whether it's frivolous or meritorious is up to the courts to decide based on the facts and the law. That's why we have courts, and judges, and such. My contrary reaction comes when it seems to generate endless comments about how the legal system is utterly broken, for no other reason than a person can file a lawsuit they personally don't think should be filed. The next step in this illogical chain is to reduce access to the courts, as though that fixes the "problem" as they perceive it. The reality is, most of these "solutions" are designed to keep people of less means from filing lawsuits and are proposed by people who, whether they are honest about it or not, want this result.
I'll assume that much of this is directed towards me.
I do not want to limit people's access to the courts; I simply want a more workable solution. I actually am happy to see that accommodations have been made to make sure that the courts remain available to all. From the second article:
Quote:
Some jurisdictions have over the years weakened loser-pays provisions in ways that create important exceptions in a minority of cases. Perhaps the best-known of these rules, in Britain, denies fee recovery to prevailing defendants when they are sued by plaintiffs assisted by official legal-aid funds, a policy that many spokesmen for defendants have bitterly denounced as unfair and inconsistent with national tradition. Even in these cases, it seems, defendants benefit from the distinctive British pay-into-court system (see below). More recently, Britain has excluded an even wider class of injury claims from the rule. Although Ontario has somewhat watered down its loser-pays provisions for class actions, they are still far superior to the American rules in discouraging ill-founded litigation
BTW, since you intimated earlier that this issue seemed tied to a certain political position, you should know that my politics are most definitely center-left. I am not in lock-step with Republicans trying to deny the less fortunate the opportunity to recover actual damages. I just happen to believe that the current system has turned into legalized extortion. Apple (and most corporations) settle all the time because it is just more expedient - even when they feel they have a strong case.
No one has yet overturned it because they see the American system as too adversarial and deleterious to cultural cohesiveness though there is some serious consideration to provide exceptions to "loser pays" in certain types of cases.
I'm not interested in whether it's been overturned. That's a matter of politics. What interests me are the criticisms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
I'll assume that much of this is directed towards me.
I do not want to limit people's access to the courts; I simply want a more workable solution. I actually am happy to see that accommodations have been made to make sure that the courts remain available to all. From the second article:
BTW, since you intimated earlier that this issue seemed tied to a certain political position, you should know that my politics are most definitely center-left. I am not in lock-step with Republicans trying to deny the less fortunate the opportunity to recover actual damages. I just happen to believe that the current system has turned into legalized extortion. Apple (and most corporations) settle all the time because it is just more expedient - even when they feel they have a strong case.
Actually not to you, but you are welcome to respond. I'm always interested in hearing solutions too, but it seems the British system isn't necessarily it either.
But I'm also wary of claims of "legalized extortion." Following from this is the assumption that plaintiffs always win something in these cases, when that doesn't seem to be true.
In brief, I'd put it is this way: I think this lawsuit is at least a little silly on the face of it, but whether it's frivolous or meritorious is up to the courts to decide based on the facts and the law. That's why we have courts, and judges, and such. My contrary reaction comes when it seems to generate endless comments about how the legal system is utterly broken, for no other reason than a person can file a lawsuit they personally don't think should be filed. The next step in this illogical chain is to reduce access to the courts, as though that fixes the "problem" as they perceive it. The reality is, most of these "solutions" are designed to keep people of less means from filing lawsuits and are proposed by people who, whether they are honest about it or not, want this result.
Whether its frivolous or meritorious is the entire point here. Allowing frivolous lawsuits to continue with no financial liability placed on the plaintiff is where the failure occurs. You can say "let the judges decide", but that doesn't relieve the higher priced goods that the defendant will put in place to compensate for the financial losses attributed to these types of lawsuits.
I'm all for consumer protection and cheering for the underdog, but in cases like this, ultimately, the consumer loses, as they will be the one paying for the lawsuit, while the plaintiff wanders away looking for their next litigious angle. While were at it, the attorneys that take on these kind of suits should also be held financially liable in the event of loss as well.
Whether its frivolous or meritorious is the entire point here. Allowing frivolous lawsuits to continue with no financial liability placed on the plaintiff is where the failure occurs. You can say "let the judges decide", but that doesn't relieve the higher priced goods that the defendant will put in place to compensate for the financial losses attributed to these types of lawsuits.
I'm all for consumer protection and cheering for the underdog, but in cases like this, ultimately, the consumer loses, as they will be the one paying for the lawsuit, while the plaintiff wanders away looking for their next litigious angle. While were at it, the attorneys that take on these kind of suits should also be held financially liable in the event of loss as well.
Comments
Ha-ha. Right.
okay you have a point. but our legal system is very different from the US that in most cases it doesn't pay to get into major legal battles here because even if you win the outcome is never that great.
okay you have a point. but our legal system is very different from the US that in most cases it doesn't pay to get into major legal battles here because even if you win the outcome is never that great.
I wonder how different they could be, since both are derived from the English Common Law.
I wonder how different they could be, since both are derived from the English Common Law.
Note that the "loser pays" system in frequently referred to as the "English rule" whereas the our system is frequently called the "American rule" even though our system is derived from English Common Law. Also worth noting is that most (perhaps all) of the other countries whose legal system is based on English Common Law employs "loser pays".
Note that the "loser pays" system in frequently referred to as the "English rule" whereas the our system is frequently called the "American rule" even though our system is derived from English Common Law. Also worth noting is that most (perhaps all) of the other countries whose legal system is based on English Common Law employs "loser pays".
I realize that, but I also know that in the US courts, it's up to a judge to decide who should pay costs, so our system is more properly called "loser sometimes pays." I was only pointing out that any claim that the legal systems are very different is something of an exaggeration.
I realize that, but I also know that in the US courts, it's up to a judge to decide who should pay costs, so our system is more properly called "loser sometimes pays." I was only pointing out that any claim that the legal systems are very different is something of an exaggeration.
It was mentioned in the article I linked. In the US, the defendant sometimes gets hit with the legal fees for the plaintiff (depending on state). The plaintiff rarely gets stuck paying the legal fees of the defendant and, therein, lies the inequity and the opportunity for plaintiffs to "go big' in their claims.
In the linked article (which you felt was mostly supporting a political position), it was explained how costs are frequently apportioned between plaintiff and defendant based on which points of law are proven. Overstating your case can actually cost you money even if you win.
The following is a more current article dealing with the issue although it is written by the same person. It does clarify a few points:
http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/overview.php
It was mentioned in the article I linked. In the US, the defendant sometimes gets hit with the legal fees for the plaintiff (depending on state). The plaintiff rarely gets stuck paying the legal fees of the defendant and, therein, lies the inequity and the opportunity for plaintiffs to "go big' in their claims.
In the linked article (which you felt was mostly supporting a political position), it was explained how costs are frequently apportioned between plaintiff and defendant based on which points of law are proven. Overstating your case can actually cost you money even if you win.
The following is a more current article dealing with the issue although it is written by the same person. It does clarify a few points:
http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/overview.php
Well, if you're going to keep citing the same person, you're not going to get much of a range of views. Turns out, loser-pays is controversial in the UK, and its abolition has been called for.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6281621.ece
I wonder how different they could be, since both are derived from the English Common Law.
Well I am sure that you could look it up, even though they have the same derivative source there are still many differences.
Well I am sure that you could look it up, even though they have the same derivative source there are still many differences.
I have. That's the point.
I have. That's the point.
Okay so then you would know that they are not the same or are you contending that in a round about kind of way?
Okay so then you would know that they are not the same or are you contending that in a round about kind of way?
I was responding to your claim that the legal systems are very different, rather than trying to argue that they are the same.
This is so off-base at so many different levels, I don't know where to begin.
I thinks it's a LOT less off-base than suing Apple because your kid breaks stuff.
I was responding to your claim that the legal systems are very different, rather than trying to argue that they are the same.
But they are very different. Anyway I am not even sure what you are talking about anymore, but whatever it is you clearly aren't that familiar with the differences between the Canadian and American judicial system. Also we don't have anywhere near as many lawsuits as you do in the US.
But they are very different. Anyway I am not even sure what you are talking about anymore, but whatever it is you clearly aren't that familiar with the differences between the Canadian and American judicial system. Also we don't have anywhere near as many lawsuits as you do in the US.
I'm not sure what you are talking about anymore either, so we're even. Yes, you could raise the bar on torts so high that only the wealthy could afford to file lawsuits. As I said before, some people would call that a good thing. If that's their goal, it would be fair for them to admit it, so at least we'd know what we are really discussing.
I'm not sure what you are talking about anymore either, so we're even. Yes, you could raise the bar on torts so high that only the wealthy could afford to file lawsuits. As I said before, some people would call that a good thing. If that's their goal, it would be fair for them to admit it, so at least we'd know what we are really discussing.
Ha ha good so we are. I am so far away from my original discussion that it's kind of comical. However, I am glad that we are having a fair minded discussion and not a match of insults. I take it that you feel that this is example of a frivolous lawsuit? I haven't read through all of your posts here so please forgive me. I originally took the view point that Apple may actually have chosen to use some questions materials for this phone. My thought process was the the following. A phone is highly portable and something that most people use all of the time. However we are clumsy and we drop things. Now by my way of thinking if you know that you are producing something that is more likely to get abused either by accident or other you would think that Apple would build in some extra toughness. Now maybe I am way off base here but doesn't that make sense? Now do I think that there has been such a problem that it warrants a lawsuit? No. Only Apple could really know how bad or good these phones are compared to previous models and obviously it will be addressed in a future model if that is the case. I also said that if you absolutely have to have a case on your phone then that shows that there is a flaw in the design of the phone. Any phone should be able to withstand some kind of damage. For example I was using a 3Gs last summer to film my son riding his bike anyway long story short he ended up getting out of control and rode right into me - the phone flew out of my hands and landed on the asphalt. There was a some damage to the case but other than that it was no worse for wear. I am not sure that my 4 would be so lucky in the same situation.
Anyway I am going on way to long here. I would like to hear what your thoughts on the matter. I think with the exception of a few people most people thought I was crazy to suggest this. I don't need to tell you though you can read through a few posts in here and you will get a pretty quick idea of how people feel.
Well, if you're going to keep citing the same person, you're not going to get much of a range of views. Turns out, loser-pays is controversial in the UK, and its abolition has been called for.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6281621.ece
I quoted the same person because I thought the second article provided some additional and more up-to-date information. The article I originally cited mentioned that people have tried overturning "loser pays":
Occasionally someone tries to change or get rid of loser-pays abroad, especially in English-speaking countries where American legal academics (and the fabulously successful American bar) are most influential. But thus far such efforts have only pointed up the rule's durability. Scholars in country after country are well aware of the American alternative and consciously reject it. And with reason: Public outcry over litigation rises to the heavens from our side of the Atlantic, not theirs. European parties have not made a stir lately by campaigning on the need to reform civil procedure, as the Republicans did here.
No one has yet overturned it because they see the American system as too adversarial and deleterious to cultural cohesiveness though there is some serious consideration to provide exceptions to "loser pays" in certain types of cases.
In brief, I'd put it is this way: I think this lawsuit is at least a little silly on the face of it, but whether it's frivolous or meritorious is up to the courts to decide based on the facts and the law. That's why we have courts, and judges, and such. My contrary reaction comes when it seems to generate endless comments about how the legal system is utterly broken, for no other reason than a person can file a lawsuit they personally don't think should be filed. The next step in this illogical chain is to reduce access to the courts, as though that fixes the "problem" as they perceive it. The reality is, most of these "solutions" are designed to keep people of less means from filing lawsuits and are proposed by people who, whether they are honest about it or not, want this result.
I'll assume that much of this is directed towards me.
I do not want to limit people's access to the courts; I simply want a more workable solution. I actually am happy to see that accommodations have been made to make sure that the courts remain available to all. From the second article:
Some jurisdictions have over the years weakened loser-pays provisions in ways that create important exceptions in a minority of cases. Perhaps the best-known of these rules, in Britain, denies fee recovery to prevailing defendants when they are sued by plaintiffs assisted by official legal-aid funds, a policy that many spokesmen for defendants have bitterly denounced as unfair and inconsistent with national tradition. Even in these cases, it seems, defendants benefit from the distinctive British pay-into-court system (see below). More recently, Britain has excluded an even wider class of injury claims from the rule. Although Ontario has somewhat watered down its loser-pays provisions for class actions, they are still far superior to the American rules in discouraging ill-founded litigation
BTW, since you intimated earlier that this issue seemed tied to a certain political position, you should know that my politics are most definitely center-left. I am not in lock-step with Republicans trying to deny the less fortunate the opportunity to recover actual damages. I just happen to believe that the current system has turned into legalized extortion. Apple (and most corporations) settle all the time because it is just more expedient - even when they feel they have a strong case.
No one has yet overturned it because they see the American system as too adversarial and deleterious to cultural cohesiveness though there is some serious consideration to provide exceptions to "loser pays" in certain types of cases.
I'm not interested in whether it's been overturned. That's a matter of politics. What interests me are the criticisms.
I'll assume that much of this is directed towards me.
I do not want to limit people's access to the courts; I simply want a more workable solution. I actually am happy to see that accommodations have been made to make sure that the courts remain available to all. From the second article:
BTW, since you intimated earlier that this issue seemed tied to a certain political position, you should know that my politics are most definitely center-left. I am not in lock-step with Republicans trying to deny the less fortunate the opportunity to recover actual damages. I just happen to believe that the current system has turned into legalized extortion. Apple (and most corporations) settle all the time because it is just more expedient - even when they feel they have a strong case.
Actually not to you, but you are welcome to respond. I'm always interested in hearing solutions too, but it seems the British system isn't necessarily it either.
But I'm also wary of claims of "legalized extortion." Following from this is the assumption that plaintiffs always win something in these cases, when that doesn't seem to be true.
In brief, I'd put it is this way: I think this lawsuit is at least a little silly on the face of it, but whether it's frivolous or meritorious is up to the courts to decide based on the facts and the law. That's why we have courts, and judges, and such. My contrary reaction comes when it seems to generate endless comments about how the legal system is utterly broken, for no other reason than a person can file a lawsuit they personally don't think should be filed. The next step in this illogical chain is to reduce access to the courts, as though that fixes the "problem" as they perceive it. The reality is, most of these "solutions" are designed to keep people of less means from filing lawsuits and are proposed by people who, whether they are honest about it or not, want this result.
Whether its frivolous or meritorious is the entire point here. Allowing frivolous lawsuits to continue with no financial liability placed on the plaintiff is where the failure occurs. You can say "let the judges decide", but that doesn't relieve the higher priced goods that the defendant will put in place to compensate for the financial losses attributed to these types of lawsuits.
I'm all for consumer protection and cheering for the underdog, but in cases like this, ultimately, the consumer loses, as they will be the one paying for the lawsuit, while the plaintiff wanders away looking for their next litigious angle. While were at it, the attorneys that take on these kind of suits should also be held financially liable in the event of loss as well.
Whether its frivolous or meritorious is the entire point here. Allowing frivolous lawsuits to continue with no financial liability placed on the plaintiff is where the failure occurs. You can say "let the judges decide", but that doesn't relieve the higher priced goods that the defendant will put in place to compensate for the financial losses attributed to these types of lawsuits.
I'm all for consumer protection and cheering for the underdog, but in cases like this, ultimately, the consumer loses, as they will be the one paying for the lawsuit, while the plaintiff wanders away looking for their next litigious angle. While were at it, the attorneys that take on these kind of suits should also be held financially liable in the event of loss as well.
Without meaning to, you've made my point.