One evening, after attending the theater, two gentlemen were walking down the avenue when they observed a rather well dressed and attractive young lady walking ahead of them. One of them turned to the other and remarked, "I'd give $250 to spend the night with that woman."
Much to their surprise, the young lady overheard the remark, turned around, and said, "I'll take you up on that offer."
She had a neat appearance and a pleasant voice, so after bidding his companion good night, the man accompanied the young lady to her apartment.
The following morning the man presented her with $125 as he prepared to leave.
She demanded the rest of the money, stating "If you don't give me the other $125, I'll sue you for it."
He laughed, saying, "I'd like to see you get it on these grounds."
Within a few days, he was surprised when he received a summons ordering his presence in court as a defendant in a lawsuit. He hurried to his lawyer and explained the details of the case.
His lawyer said, "She can't possibly get a judgment against you on such grounds, but it will be interesting to see how her case will be presented."
After the usual preliminaries, the lady's lawyer addressed the court as follows: "Your honor, my client, this lady, is the owner of a piece of property, a garden spot, surrounded by a profuse growth of shrubbery, which property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specified length of time for the sum of $250. The defendant took possession of the property, used it extensively for the purposes for which it was rented, but upon evacuating the premises, he paid only $125, one-half of the amount agreed upon. The rent was not excessive, since it is restricted property, and we ask judgment be granted against the defendant to assure payment of the balance."
The defendant's lawyer was impressed and amused by the way his opponent had presented the case. His defense therefore was somewhat different from the way he originally planned to present it. "Your honor," he said, "my client agrees that the lady has a fine piece of property, which he did rent such property for a time, and a degree of pleasure was derived from the transaction. However, my client found a well on the property around which he placed his own stones, sunk a shaft, and erected a pump, all labor performed personally by him. We claim these improvements to the property were sufficient to offset the unpaid amount, and that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for the rental of said property. We, therefore, ask that judgment not be granted."
The young lady's lawyer answered, "Your honor, my client agrees that the defendant did find a well on her property. However, had the defendant not known that the well existed; he would never have rented the property. Also, upon evacuating the premises, the defendant removed the stones, pulled out the shaft, and took the pump with him. In doing so, he not only dragged the equipment through the shrubbery, but left the hole much larger than it was prior to his occupancy, making the property much less desirable to others. We, therefore, ask that judgment be granted."
In the Judge's decision, he provided for two options: "Pay the $125 or have the equipment detached from its current location and provide it to the plaintiff for damages."
The defendant immediately wrote a check.
2006-10-24 02:49:01 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Business & Finance ➔ Renting & Real Estate
Yes it was a proper judgement. But if the plaintiff presented it in a different matter basically selling herself as a prostitute then she would be opening herself to a criminal matter which would be against the Bill of Rights. If one was to incriminate one self in a court of law then the judge would have no other alternative to hold her on those charges unless given protection from the courts. A good example would be a mafia informant.
2006-10-24 02:59:38 · answer #1 · answered by steve s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Borders must be type of alongside the 1949-50 green Line. The tiny Jewish Quarter of the old city of Jerusalem and the the two small Latrun Salient which cuts the Tel Aviv to Jerusalem street might desire to hitch Israel jointly as the Palestinians ought to acquire tunnel rights by using Israel to connect the Gaza Strip with the West financial employer. Jewish refugees from Arab international locations had to be settled interior the State of Israel so descendants of Palestinian Arab refugees must be settled interior the destiny state of Palestine. i think that those words could be honest and passable to reasonable and real looking human beings on the two factors.
2016-12-28 03:31:12 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a Jew for Jesus -I read the end to know where its going first-and from the end it seems like the logical conclusion and if its demented why read the rest-peace up and good humor im laughing and smiling and I never even read the rest-I got the well of salvation with amazing grace-thanks :D
2006-10-26 06:18:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, aren't you the clever one! I'm glad the defendant chose to write the check. Detached equipment wouldn't have been of any use to anyone! LOL...
2006-10-24 04:08:51 · answer #4 · answered by loveblue 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wow long thread but basically their is no enforceable contract either it's illegal because money for sex is illegal or no meeting of the minds for all the other stuff in the thread thus no contract
2006-10-24 02:54:59 · answer #5 · answered by goz1111 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pretty amusing.
2006-10-24 04:42:15 · answer #6 · answered by djecse 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL Good stuff.
2006-10-24 03:06:16 · answer #7 · answered by Ali 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
lol, thats a good one! ( & yep it sounds fair to me!!!)
2006-10-24 02:58:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋