Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
He's surely not actually doing it, but even if he did that doesn't make it not a threat. Following through on the threatened action does not mean that then retroactively there was no threat. Lots of people are threatened with things that then happen. Following through on the harm, injury or danger does not mean the threat didn't happen. This is quite a novel concept that it's not a threat if you then do the thing you are threatening to do. Even if he is so mad that he actually tries to sue this guy and gets laughed out of court before it gets anywhere, he did in fact threaten to take it to court. 'It's not a threat, it's a promise' is just some tough guy posturing bullshit from angry people.
|
I agree, plus, you eloquently proved, by his own words, that he lied when he said he didn't say something he clearly did. So these issues are already settled. But after all these discussions, with lawyer input, it would be interesting to see an actual court make a ruling.
Then when these discussions come up, we could all cite bigfanNY vs. Cody77 as precedent.
In the recent thread that was somewhat similar, it was generally decided that a seller could choose to not do business with someone if they had reason. In retrospect, it looks like this seller is glad he didn't do business with this guy. At least, the seller is saying he never will in the future.