🚀 go-pugleaf

not@top-post wrote in message news:<nbidncVxmKAC3jPd4p2dnA@is.co.za>...
> 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.

[further sophistry snipped]

Billing errors and disputes over accounts arise all the time and are
handled in a particular way that makes sense, NOT because it is
"scientific", NOT because it is the result of "applying simple
deduction to simple facts", NOT because it gives results that a
self-serving party would like to see it give, BUT RATHER because it
allows disputes to be settled simply and quickly, with some degree of
fairness. Dragging what you call "logic" into business transactions
only serves to put the other party on alert that you are attempting
some sort of sophistry that will cost them money if they go along with
it.

There are two principles that you have deliberately ignored throughout
your many postings on this matter that carry more weight than all the
logic you would have apply to it, and these are:

* When you owe a disputed debt, you are obliged to pay so much of it
as is not in dispute; you may not dispute the whole when the amount in
dispute is just a part. Not doing so goes by the name of Bad Faith.
People you deal with do not like dealing with you when you deal in bad
faith, and they will take recourse to the courts rather than deal with
someone who will not deal reasonably and in good faith.

* When there is action involving you or your interests in a court, you
are obliged to follow the deadlines and procedures established by that
court. Not doing so may result in your being found in default or in
contempt. While it is a principle that a court will prefer to settle a
case on the merits rather than by default, it is not such a fixed
principle that a court will excuse a default by a defendant who has no
very good excuse for his default and no argument that the court
believes could prevail if a trial were held.

-- 
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green