Would you follow through and pay? Brady's last TD

[Peter_Spaeth]

LOLOL. What you call spewing BS I would call fulfilling my ethical DUTY to represent my client to the full extent permitted by law. From the ABA:

A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client's behalf.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

LOLOL. What you call spewing BS I would call fulfilling my ethical DUTY to represent my client to the full extent permitted by law.

LOL

Peter,

In my defense, I did say I was looking at this from the standpoint of a juror, and not that of an attorney. I'm very aware of the legal side and how you attorneys try to always do things for your clients, as best you can. And most often do fantastic jobs. It's just that over the years I've seen and been involved in enough cases where I just literally shake my head and roll my eyes, and want to stop and question the sanity of the attorney whose argument or point is so insanely stupid or farfetched that I can't imagine anyone being that dumb, or anyone else buying into it. And yet, people do.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

LOL

Peter,

In my defense, I did say I was looking at this from the standpoint of a juror, and not that of an attorney. I'm very aware of the legal side and how you attorneys try to always do things for your clients, as best you can. And most often do fantastic jobs. It's just that over the years I've seen and been involved in enough cases where I just literally shake my head and roll my eyes, and want to stop and question the sanity of the attorney whose argument or point is so insanely stupid or farfetched that I can't imagine anyone being that dumb, or anyone else buying into it. And yet, people do.

Trust me, I’ve had the same experience.

[Lorewalker]

There have been a lot of great points and posts made on this thread. It is a fascinating discussion, because I was not the high bidder and nice to see everyone playing nicely too.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Trust me, I’ve had the same experience.

LOL

I'm sure we could swap some pretty good war stories.

[chriskim]

I called Leland's, they said they can't make any comments at this moment.

[Carter08]

BobC agree with your post mostly except this would probably be decided on a motion by a judge based on the listing and not get to a jury. I think it could go either way and will come down to who tells the best story and appears to be wearing the whiter hat so to speak.

[ALBB]

HA HA ..I am right and you are wrong !

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Carter08

BobC agree with your post mostly except this would probably be decided on a motion by a judge based on the listing and not get to a jury. I think it could go either way and will come down to who tells the best story and appears to be wearing the whiter hat so to speak.

Carter, don't disagree at all that that could possibly happen, but this is one of the problems with the legal system we have, and how attorneys get all wound up in this minutiae of words, specifics, implied meanings and what all else, to the point that most everyday, ordinary people start looking at agreements, contracts, leases and documents that are like novels because they're so ridiculously long, and contain so much unintelligible fine print that normal people see all this and often have absolutely no clue what is being said and its meaning, and so just end up wondering........W - T - F!

I've often felt that if there was ever a law to be passed, it should be one that requires things always be written in plain, simple English that every ordinary person can actually understand. But instead we're constantly faced with all this legalese and lawyer-speak, that is akin to a foreign language to most people. No wonder we end up with as many lawsuits as we do with all the confusion and misunderstanding that is out there in the world.

And in this particular case regarding the Brady football, a decision like this should never be left to just one single person (a judge) to make. As Peter alluded to in an earlier post, wouldn't that be like basing the outcome on an n of 1 sample, where there's only one item in the sample that an outcome is based off of. Well that sure doesn't seem to be a fair and logical way to determine something in accordance to how normal people in our society would view it. For that you'd want something more like ummmm, oh yeah, a jury of your peers to be able to give a more balanced opinion.

But if you're right that a judge would most likely decide a case like this themself, a former judge, who is also a Net54 member, has already weighed in on this thread and seemed to favor the seller's position in this case. Still as you say, we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. But I still feel the real crux of this case revolves around when the liability for the potential loss of the football's value transfers to the buyer. Pretty much everyone believed Brady had retired or good and the football was as advertised, and technically it still is.

Have a good one.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Carter08

BobC agree with your post mostly except this would probably be decided on a motion by a judge based on the listing and not get to a jury. I think it could go either way and will come down to who tells the best story and appears to be wearing the whiter hat so to speak.

I was re-reading the last page of this thread and found this amusing. Judges do not make motions, they issue rulings. It is attorneys that file motions. I have looked at thousand of dockets and have never seen a motion by a judge. Remember they are the arbiter.