Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scottinalaska
I am beginning to the see the logic..or ILlogic in this.
But let me try and break this down without the shiny badge involved though.
I observed you shoot my dog(or at least I will accuse you of it shortly).
So I go in as the plaintiff, having filed my complaint, and accuse you of shooting my dog. I am the only one who supposedly saw it.
You now can deny it, if you like, or you can admit to it.
Is my testimony on top of my own complaint then worthless because they are coming from the same person?
Link me to the thread you are referring to, Idknow, if this is answered or discussed.
thanks for your thoughts though. You might win the salmon yet!
scott
|
--
.oO a challenge!
you're describing a tort;
a corporate-threaded-agent is only liable to tort when they act outside of their legislated authority.
Between you and I in your post-quoted, you and I have no such "liability", that is, there is no act of legislature which applies to us to join us as partners in some contract or agreement.
So that if you brought me into court to answer your plaint as you wrote it above, I'd consider impeaching the plaint as insufficient because I can prove that and your dog was on my property munching on my chattle.
With that, I might consider a counter-suit alleging trespass and damaged property (my goat that provides milk to my family is dead or maimed)
So, my dear Horatio, the fault isn't in your post but in your assumption.
Neither of us in your post is a corporate-agent.
Answering your post as it is tho:
As the witness to the alleged tort, and the subsequent filer of complaint, your testimony is in the filed papers to the court. it's not invalid, but I can attmept to impeach it.
How's that?
what's `the salmon'?
is that like ``the whole enchalada''?
(i'll hunt for the other thread or maybe it's in my archive)