Also, if they only wanted 75k in damages why didn't MJ agree to pay that and save themselves 2.5 million?
Also, if they only wanted 75k in damages why didn't MJ agree to pay that and save themselves 2.5 million?
Presumably because that's like waving a "free $75k available here" flag to anyone else who feels like suing them next week, and the week after that?
Our civil justice system needs to be cheaper and more accessible. It shouldn't be possible to wage economic war on a company or individual via the judiciary.
But designing a justice system around "maybe you'll find a charitable person willing to help" seems like a bad idea.
Pointing out problems with the current system is not a logical fallacy, and having a working solution in-hand is not a pre-requisite to observing the existence of problems.
Also, accusing me of using the Nirvana fallacy while also accusing me of not providing an alternative policy is literally a contradiction...