18 ms·
It's not clear to me why we can't settle to pay damages. If it was "settle to pay for damages" would that make it okay? How about "settle to pay for the damag
by dec0dedab0de 5y ago
It's not clear to me why we can't settle to pay damages.
If it was "settle to pay for damages" would that make it okay?
How about "settle to pay for the damages caused?"
I love being pedantic as much as the next guy, but the government doesn't get to define what words mean.
- GavinMcG 5y agoYes, both of those would correct the default interpretation of the term. For one thing, damages as something paid for isn't the same as damages paid. You pay money, you don't pay for money. On the other hand, if you pay for the consequences of your actions, that's different than "paying [read: suffering] the consequences." Where did government defining things come into play? That seems to be a strawman you constructed: > websites do not have to use the legal definitions of words No, they don't. They're still misleading if they use words misleadingly.
- dec0dedab0de 5y agoJust before the part you quoted I said I agreed it was misleading. All I'm saying is that the word damages doesn't have to match the legal definition.