🚀 go-pugleaf

Physicists claim to have found anti-matter.
I believe I've found a source of negative-knowledge.
Repeatedly, I've confirmed that persons with elementary scientific or
accounting training, immediately see [what we believe is] the obvious
answer to the scenario below.

All attorneys who I've tested don't see it in terms of applying simple
deduction to simple facts, but rather as a search through their mental
library of case histories.   I.e parrot like "matching up of phrases", 
without consideration of the deeper meaning.  Which leads to
absurd conclusions.

So far, I've not determined if they started with this inability or whether 
negative-knowledge was aquired during training and practice.

Here's the scenario, which is incrementally modified, to evolve from
the kindergarden version towards the final version:-

1. You receive goods from a supplier for $10, and the false bill for $11
  arrives.  Do you have a valid defence to dispute the error ? Yes, of course.   
  To those who say you should pay $10 and dispute the balance: you intend
  to leave the country/planet soon, and it is vital that you leave without
  a false record of being a debtor, who left owing an outstanding balance.
  Apparentlly 'credit rating' is important these days, and could be vital to
  a bussiness.   I.e. you insist on [and are entitled to] correct billing.

 To force a resolution before you leave, you notify the supplier that you 
 are withholding payment, until the supplier either acknowledges 
  your documentary proof that the correct amount is $10 or provides
  counter evidence that his $11 is correct. 

2. The supplier sends a letter demanding $11 by date 3 "else legal action".
  If you had a defence at step 1, has this now been removed? Of course not.

3. You receive an attorney's demand letter to pay $11 [don't get 
 side-tracked by interest and fees] by date 4 "else summons will be issued".
 If you had a defence at steps 1 and 2, has this now been removed ?
Of course not, since the "cause of action" was at time 1, and repeating
the 'false' demands doesn't make it any less false.

4. The summons is issued.  Has this event now, magically destroyed the 
 valid defence of stage 1, to render you defenseless ?  No, the court
 will see that your evidence proves that the supplier is 'wrong'.
----------

If you understand this kindergarden version above, lets refine it towards 
the final scenario by the following modifications:-

5. At stage 2 you received an identical supply with the same billing
error [known to be caused by their same computer error], so that the
correct balance owing was then $20 and the false bill was for $22.
If your defence at stage 1 was against their false billing, how can
now, identical further false billing NOT be a similar defence ?

7. Now at stages 3 and 4 further identical supplies with corresponding
false billings occur. I.e the true balance accumulates to $40 and the
corresponding false billing reads $44. Can attorneys handle this simple
arithmentic ?     At date of issue of summons when the true admitted
balance owing was $40 and the false billing was $44, was there a
valid 'defence against the claim' ? Of course: by the same logic as
the defense of stage 1 existed !   Namely the false continued billing.
----------

Here's the smoke and mirrors magic of 'legal logic', i.e. by just "matching
up phrases" without considering the deeper implications:-

"Since you admitted owing $40 which is more than the claim of $11,
you have no defence" I.e the supplier made no mistake !!
----------

BTW the cumbersome thousand word attempted explanation above,
is NOT how I choose to explain the scenario; which rather is simply by
3 columns of a few figures.  But the attorneys [multiple] can't understand
tabulated figures.   Can they understand this verbal description ?

Please somebody, releive the pain from the disonance of the apparently
absurd legal conclusion that "you have no defence" since you "admitted
owing more than the claim".   Or should I jump in front of a moving train ?

Comments and solutions welcomed, emailed to: easlab AT absamail.co.za

Thanks,

== Chris Glur.