3 ms·
> where both sides argued over the language but the settlement did not alter the law, so I would have to litigate when push came to shove. It does not matter w
by Aachen 2y ago
> where both sides argued over the language but the settlement did not alter the law, so I would have to litigate when push came to shove.
It does not matter what the law says, you always have to litigate if you want to force another party to do what you want. If the law says it and they don't do it, you have to. If case law confirms it and they don't do it, you also have to. Commonly referred to as the 90% of the law: they have what's yours, but it's up to you to put in the effort to prove it and get anything back at all
Judges never alter law made by the legislator, in any (trias politica) legal system that I know of (Netherlands mainly, but also what I read of UK law and friends), but in all of the aforementioned: the case law is an important aspect of your obligations and rights. One refers to it as basically equal to law, but it doesn't alter the law itself
- bombcar 2y agoJudges at least in the USA can alter the law, in two ways: 1. They can determine the law does not apply 2. They can decide the law collides with another, higher ranking law and so does not apply Both don't really do anything unless the other judges start to agree with them, in which case people stop bringing the cases because they know they'll lose. The cost of fighting the case is almost always way more than the value of the case, so they'll avoid fighting it if the outcome is pretty well determined. This is one case where you have an advantage; you can defend yourself pro se (and likely lose) but the very cost of attacking your pro se defense is often way more than the value they get from you.