5 ms·

Losing party paying everything is perhaps even worse than each party paying its own costs. The correct solution, as implemented in some countries, is that if a

by bloak 7y ago

Losing party paying everything is perhaps even worse than each party paying its own costs. The correct solution, as implemented in some countries, is that if a party was behaving unreasonably, for example by refusing a fair offer to settle out of court, then that party pays the reasonable costs of the other party.

zaarn 7y ago
Easy solution; fix attorney fees to a reasonable value, then the payout is done adjusted for 1 attorney. So if you loose against a large company, the worst that happens is you pay twice that of your lawyer; once for your lawyer, then for theirs. That's the solution in germany and it works quite beautifully (sans people intimidating others into believing they'd loose).
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  So first thing here is - you accept the principle that the winner should pay their own costs. Since as you say, if the company has five lawyers, they have to pay for four of them. So there's no real difference. If they hire ten lawyers, and your lawyer says "I need help to do it" you're screwed - either you pay the extra lawyer out of your own pocket, or you ask your lawyer to do the best job they can do. The difference is just how much shit flows in when you open the gate - not how much shit is there, or which direction it flows. In Germany you have to buy insurance against getting sued. I mean, you could call that an indication of a beautifully working system, but I call it an utter failure.
  - atq2119 7y ago
    > In Germany you have to buy insurance against getting sued. That is incorrect, and what's more is that I have no idea where you're getting this from (it's possible that certain professions are required to buy extra insurance, but the only universally mandatory insurance in Germany is the health and social insurance).
  - zaarn 7y ago
    You don't have to buy insurance against getting sued at all. There is no law that forces you to buy one and few people have it.
    - Faark 7y ago
      There is no general law, but there seem to be 22.3m "Rechtsschutzversicherung" signed. I'm not comfortable calling this "few people".
      - zaarn 7y ago
        Is there a source for that number and how it correlates to the total number of actual customers?
        Faark 7y ago
        I forgot the link? That's somewhat embarrassing. I just went with the first search result, a statista link [0] (and the free trial certainly doesn't offer much more info). Most other links right now seem to be related to complaints about that type of insurance o_O > correlates to the total number of actual customers Hard to say. Companies can have them, but I doubt there are 22m. Families can have them and cover multiple people at once. Germany's population is only 82m, so 22m just sounds like a lot to me. [0] (ger) https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/6599/umfrage/vertragsbestand-der-rechtsschutzversicherung-seit-1990/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/6599/umfrage/...

by bloak 7y ago

zaarn 7y ago

Easy solution; fix attorney fees to a reasonable value, then the payout is done adjusted for 1 attorney. So if you loose against a large company, the worst that happens is you pay twice that of your lawyer; once for your lawyer, then for theirs. That's the solution in germany and it works quite beautifully (sans people intimidating others into believing they'd loose).

squiggleblaz 7y ago
So first thing here is - you accept the principle that the winner should pay their own costs. Since as you say, if the company has five lawyers, they have to pay for four of them. So there's no real difference. If they hire ten lawyers, and your lawyer says "I need help to do it" you're screwed - either you pay the extra lawyer out of your own pocket, or you ask your lawyer to do the best job they can do. The difference is just how much shit flows in when you open the gate - not how much shit is there, or which direction it flows. In Germany you have to buy insurance against getting sued. I mean, you could call that an indication of a beautifully working system, but I call it an utter failure.
- atq2119 7y ago
  > In Germany you have to buy insurance against getting sued. That is incorrect, and what's more is that I have no idea where you're getting this from (it's possible that certain professions are required to buy extra insurance, but the only universally mandatory insurance in Germany is the health and social insurance).
- zaarn 7y ago
  You don't have to buy insurance against getting sued at all. There is no law that forces you to buy one and few people have it.
  - Faark 7y ago
    There is no general law, but there seem to be 22.3m "Rechtsschutzversicherung" signed. I'm not comfortable calling this "few people".
    - zaarn 7y ago
      Is there a source for that number and how it correlates to the total number of actual customers?
      - Faark 7y ago
        I forgot the link? That's somewhat embarrassing. I just went with the first search result, a statista link [0] (and the free trial certainly doesn't offer much more info). Most other links right now seem to be related to complaints about that type of insurance o_O > correlates to the total number of actual customers Hard to say. Companies can have them, but I doubt there are 22m. Families can have them and cover multiple people at once. Germany's population is only 82m, so 22m just sounds like a lot to me. [0] (ger) https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/6599/umfrage/vertragsbestand-der-rechtsschutzversicherung-seit-1990/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/6599/umfrage/...