>doesn’t appear to have committed any torts in precedence
Cheers dude, UANAL or what?
Also, interestingly, arbitration seems to be how these judgements are being won, I wonder if it’s because of state contract law or if the accused are waving a right to trial
>doesn’t appear to have committed any torts in precedence
Cheers dude, UANAL or what?
Also, interestingly, arbitration seems to be how these judgements are being won, I wonder if it’s because of state contract law or if the accused are waving a right to trial
You sound quite anti-semantic.
To any non-homosexual, “illegal”/“crime” implicitly includes “violations of tort and contract law precedent” aka “civil” law.
You’re doing an
>ACKSHULLY
right now
Guy, you learn the difference between Civil Law and Criminal Law in civics class. Or perhaps "Legal Studies" In high school.
It is a distinction that has profound impact and is very much germane to the issue at hand.
You know that you are making a semantics argument, right? Then arguing for a definition that is literally wrong.
Lmfao
What were the damages genius?