3 ms·

i totally laughed out loud when i read that line, how would he have any evidence for further cases? i guess he did though...

mcherm 10y ago
Nope, he had no further evidence in the subsequent cases. The problem is that, legally, Doug Costello (the victim who sold the printer) admitted that he owed the money. The system is set up so that if one party doesn't even show up, they are assumed to have agreed with everything the other party says. They HAVE to have some kind of a rule like this or people would just not show up and then be immune lawsuits. The law DOES say that you must notify them personally so they know about the lawsuit and the court date -- that is normally done by personally handing them the papers, but sometimes it can be done other ways like mailing them. In this case Gersh Zavodnik (the asshole who bought the printer) swears he mailed it (although Doug claims he never received it) so that counts. The problem here is that the judge believed he didn't have the authority to exercise judgement and rule that this was an abuse of the system. Fortunately, the appeals court DID think the law allowed judges to exercise that judgement, and they did so.
- kelnos 10y ago
  They HAVE to have some kind of a rule like this or people would just not show up and then be immune lawsuits. Not really. That's the easy way to do it, but the compromise would be that if the defendant doesn't show up, the plaintiff gets to present their evidence and argue their case, and the judge decides based on that. Under these rules, in this case, if Zavodnik had shown up, and Costello hadn't, Zavodnik would present the zero evidence he had, and the judge should have thrown it out.
  - mcherm 10y ago
    That is just how the rules ACTUALLY work. If the other party does not show up then you get a "default judgement". This does NOT mean an automatic win. But it DOES mean (roughly) that the judge has to believe every claim you make (all uncontested claims, and no one is contesting it). Usually that means you win the case.

mcherm 10y ago

Nope, he had no further evidence in the subsequent cases. The problem is that, legally, Doug Costello (the victim who sold the printer) admitted that he owed the money. The system is set up so that if one party doesn't even show up, they are assumed to have agreed with everything the other party says. They HAVE to have some kind of a rule like this or people would just not show up and then be immune lawsuits. The law DOES say that you must notify them personally so they know about the lawsuit and the court date -- that is normally done by personally handing them the papers, but sometimes it can be done other ways like mailing them. In this case Gersh Zavodnik (the asshole who bought the printer) swears he mailed it (although Doug claims he never received it) so that counts. The problem here is that the judge believed he didn't have the authority to exercise judgement and rule that this was an abuse of the system. Fortunately, the appeals court DID think the law allowed judges to exercise that judgement, and they did so.

kelnos 10y ago
They HAVE to have some kind of a rule like this or people would just not show up and then be immune lawsuits. Not really. That's the easy way to do it, but the compromise would be that if the defendant doesn't show up, the plaintiff gets to present their evidence and argue their case, and the judge decides based on that. Under these rules, in this case, if Zavodnik had shown up, and Costello hadn't, Zavodnik would present the zero evidence he had, and the judge should have thrown it out.
- mcherm 10y ago
  That is just how the rules ACTUALLY work. If the other party does not show up then you get a "default judgement". This does NOT mean an automatic win. But it DOES mean (roughly) that the judge has to believe every claim you make (all uncontested claims, and no one is contesting it). Usually that means you win the case.