3 ms·
It’s Saturday and the courts are closed. You park in a car park I own. I have put up a sign saying I can instantly crush any crossover vehicles I like, as I co
by michaelt 2y ago
It’s Saturday and the courts are closed. You park in a car park I own.
I have put up a sign saying I can instantly crush any crossover vehicles I like, as I consider them ugly and lacking in character.
As I load your car into my crusher, you dispute the legality of my sign. But the court is closed until Monday, and the sign says I can crush your car instantly, no waiting.
Should I be allowed to crush your car today? Or should I have to wait until Monday, so the disputed legality can be resolved?
- nkrisc 2y agoThat’s actually a question for you. You won’t truly know if you’re allowed to until a court decides. You can choose to proceed and crush it, and then deal with the consequences of doing so if it turns out you were wrong. Likely you’ll end up owing damages to the owner of the car, perhaps even punitive damages on top. I think the same applies here.
- hmmm-i-wonder 2y agoThe TRO actually means you aren't allowed, that's the point. It's an ordered injunction that legally obliges you from not acting until the courts can review the facts. The court IS deciding, temporarily.
- nkrisc 2y agoIn this case, yes. That’s pretty cut and dry for the time being. However regarding the analogy I was replying to, I was pointing out that it’s less a situation of what you’re allowed to do and more one of what you believe you’re allowed to do, and weighing the consequences of being wrong against upholding your stated terms. In other words, something you should probably discuss with a lawyer.
- account42 2y agoThere is no TRO in the car park analogy.
- hmmm-i-wonder 2y agoBut there is here, so its a flawed analogy.