👍

  • Mugmoor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As usual, the headline completely misrepresents the story. Read the article, the context around this makes all the difference.

    (The judge was right)

    • 9488fcea02a9
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I talked to a lawyer friend of mine. In this case the judge was right, but this precedent will probably be appealed in the future if there are more damages at stake

      Like if some idiot exec at a company thumbs up emojis a bad deal and loses $10M

      • voluble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        IANAL so I don’t know anything about anything. But I think the subtext of this story is one of the little guy getting comically screwed by a bigger player. If the South West Terminal, with capacity for 52000 tonnes of grain, wants to swing their dick on a farmer over 86 tonnes of undelivered grain, they’ll find a way to win. Regardless of the law, going after a guy over a thumbs up emoji is audacious, at least.

        I expect that in the future, someone in the farmer’s position with bigger stakes and more money to play with will bring on a herd of lawyers to throw down a thousand esoteric & byzantine arguments & get a win. Maybe that’s unfounded pessimism, I don’t know. You just don’t seem to hear stories about rich people taking Ls like this.

    • mikewavebird@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hmm I don’t understand how the headline misrepresents it? How would you interpret the difference between the headline and the article? 🤔