4 ms·

If you are calling EJ a liar, it could be true. But I see little interest for EJ to be lying here. Eventually investigations will be done and such details like

If you are calling EJ a liar, it could be true. But I see little interest for EJ to be lying here. Eventually investigations will be done and such details like "what's been offered to the victim" will be revealed. So no point lying there. (On the other hand you may suggest a huge conspiracy theory by someone who doesn't want to see the company grow, it sounds far fetched.)

ThomPete 15y ago
You mean besides a very lucrative lawsuit or settlement? EJ don't have to be a liar. Simply Interpreting the event differently and taking that to court could be enough.
- ashishgandhi 15y ago
  "lucrative lawsuit or settlement" How? If I'm not mistaken the terms clearly say the company is not responsible in these kind of situations.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    What gets written into a contract, and what a court will uphold, can be two very different things. Lawyers regularly include language in contracts, notices, terms of use etc that they know won't hold up, because it will intimidate a certain percentage of people into not even trying. The classic example is those signs in parking lots saying "we accept no liability for damage to your car". Well in an unmodified common law jurisdiction, it's a bailee-bailor relationship and they are on the hook for the damage. Contracts are not like computer programs. They can and do include deliberate bullshit included purely for strategic bluffing purposes. Of course, IANAL, TINLA.
- carbonica 15y ago
  Lucrative lawsuit? Settlement? Besides the obvious terms of use which will exempt Airbnb from liability, why would EJ have said profusely that Airbnb bears no responsibility? How does that help her win a case blaming Airbnb for anything?
  - ThomPete 15y ago
    People start lawsuits on all kind of reasons whether they stand a fair chance or not. I don't care either way, the main point is that we don't have enough information to make any useful conclusions. It would be nice to at least admit that.
    - carbonica 15y ago
      We have plenty of useful information. You've just decided that the source's word is no good when nothing she's said has been disputed by any party. If you ignore her because you don't like what she has to say, then yeah, you wouldn't have "enough information to make any useful conclusions."
      - ThomPete 15y ago
        Given that you read an awful lot into what I just wrote I think my point still stands. You have no way of knowing what is going on. Feel free to speculate just don't wrap it into a vail of certainty when it's clearly not. She don't have to lie for your interpretation of the whole matter to be wrong. If you have ever dealt with angry customers or mis treated customers you would know what I mean. Things a rarely as crystal clear as they seem.
  - zby 15y ago
    Apart from what was said about the chances that the terms of use would not stand in court - it is also possible that the lawsuit is just a racket operation, it is a pain for airbnb regardless of the verdict and EJ could count on a settlement even without having a real case. I am not saying that she is doing it - this is only a comment on possible strategies.

ThomPete 15y ago

You mean besides a very lucrative lawsuit or settlement? EJ don't have to be a liar. Simply Interpreting the event differently and taking that to court could be enough.

ashishgandhi 15y ago
"lucrative lawsuit or settlement" How? If I'm not mistaken the terms clearly say the company is not responsible in these kind of situations.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  What gets written into a contract, and what a court will uphold, can be two very different things. Lawyers regularly include language in contracts, notices, terms of use etc that they know won't hold up, because it will intimidate a certain percentage of people into not even trying. The classic example is those signs in parking lots saying "we accept no liability for damage to your car". Well in an unmodified common law jurisdiction, it's a bailee-bailor relationship and they are on the hook for the damage. Contracts are not like computer programs. They can and do include deliberate bullshit included purely for strategic bluffing purposes. Of course, IANAL, TINLA.
carbonica 15y ago
Lucrative lawsuit? Settlement? Besides the obvious terms of use which will exempt Airbnb from liability, why would EJ have said profusely that Airbnb bears no responsibility? How does that help her win a case blaming Airbnb for anything?
- ThomPete 15y ago
  People start lawsuits on all kind of reasons whether they stand a fair chance or not. I don't care either way, the main point is that we don't have enough information to make any useful conclusions. It would be nice to at least admit that.
  - carbonica 15y ago
    We have plenty of useful information. You've just decided that the source's word is no good when nothing she's said has been disputed by any party. If you ignore her because you don't like what she has to say, then yeah, you wouldn't have "enough information to make any useful conclusions."
    - ThomPete 15y ago
      Given that you read an awful lot into what I just wrote I think my point still stands. You have no way of knowing what is going on. Feel free to speculate just don't wrap it into a vail of certainty when it's clearly not. She don't have to lie for your interpretation of the whole matter to be wrong. If you have ever dealt with angry customers or mis treated customers you would know what I mean. Things a rarely as crystal clear as they seem.
- zby 15y ago
  Apart from what was said about the chances that the terms of use would not stand in court - it is also possible that the lawsuit is just a racket operation, it is a pain for airbnb regardless of the verdict and EJ could count on a settlement even without having a real case. I am not saying that she is doing it - this is only a comment on possible strategies.