The plaintiff side ran a very, very narrow and technical legal argument.
They argued that a court would never – read my lips – ever – find that the plaintiff contributed to its own loss as a result of a fraud, notwithstanding the fraud by the defendant’s employee went undetected, in large part, because of the plaintiff’s woeful back office systems.
And they had contributory negligence cases to die for – even a House of Lords decision bang on point – which go down big here… apparently the Law Lords say you can’t steal from an innocent then, when you’re caught, blame the victim saying that they made it too easy for you to do so.
Hmmm… actually that might have a logic to it.
But the plaintiff’s CEO got it – he knew blind freddy could have driven a truck through his systems. He couldn’t go into an open courtroom and argue that his publicly traded company had no responsibility based on a House of Lords case no one in his world would take the time to understand.
Once he understood the architecture of the argument he didn’t care what the case said or what the five lawyers in the room said the case said – the laws of his marketplace were far more powerful, and he knew it.
“And the wild things roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws.” The defining personality trait of conflict mediators...
By Robert BenjaminThe number of theories proposed to explain the results of the recent election is almost equal to the number of pundits proposing them. From micro-analyses – the Comey effect, the...
By Richard BarbieriAnother news day. Another day of partisan wrangling that equates to tribalism. News reports of the Republican effort in the house to pass a repeal of the healthcare act describe...
By Merri L. Hanson