Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
An ethical one. If a lawyer truely doesn't feel like his side has a legit chance they should not take the case.
As for this particular case I would be curous what the 'assumed' damages could possibly be. The coach can't coach softball anymore? If so I'm not sure Cdn law allows for significan financial compensation here.
|
Agree, a good lawyer should give advice on how likely the case is to succeed.
Yeah assumed damages just means they don't need to put a dollar figure on it, it's assumed that the damage has taken place. As you say I think this is partially because you don't get the huge $$'s you see elsewhere. If the lawsuit was won then the remedy would maybe just be a public apology, who knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp
If it was forwarded along x number of times, wouldn't the sandbagger have to prove that the email hadn't been altered?
And could they prove that your friend had been the one to send it?
Force the sandbagger to prove that the email account hadn't been hacked and that the email hadn't been altered.
But I'm not a lawyer. But a quick search brought up the concept of Qualified Privilege.
|
Yeah I think the prosecution would have to first prove that what was said was said. Email's probably pretty easy, they'd get the emails from all computers and servers involved.
Hm, interesting I've never read the qualified privilege before, though that seems more of a social good type situation. Not sure how that would apply in this case.
It would boil down to is the accusation of "sandbagging" true. Proving that it is would be tough, how exactly would you prove it? Maybe getting tapes from parents of games, testimony? That all sounds pretty involved, and expensive lawyer wise.