3 ms·
The plaintiff is arguing an equally absurd notion, that because they are suing on behalf of the estate, the estate never signed up for Disney+ because it didn't
by pishpash 2y ago
The plaintiff is arguing an equally absurd notion, that because they are suing on behalf of the estate, the estate never signed up for Disney+ because it didn't exist before the death.
So you know, it's all absurdity vs absurdity.
The reasonable human thing would be to say that an autosigned agreement should have a higher bar on terms and in particar no provision in it can be valid for irrelevant things to the immediate service at hand. (Several others have made the same conclusion.)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tsimionescu 2y agoFound out in the meantime that I was wrong - the tickets are not for this mall and have just as little to do with the case as Disney+ video. Disney's claim is just that absurd...
- caddemon 2y agoThis defense is absurd, but also there are no tickets for the mall and Disney doesn't own most of the stores/restaurants in the mall. The restaurant in question is a tenant and the company that owns it is also being sued.