2007-01-06 01:26:17 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Cases aren't always about figuring out who is telling the truth and who is lying. Sometimes both parties are telling the truth and the case is to figure out what should happen next.
Suppose you're a landlord. I'm walking near a building you own when someone grabs me, pushes me into the building (the door was unlocked), and robs me.
Can I sue you? Even if we both agree on the facts of the case, our lawyers will argue about how the law applies. Do you owe a duty to keep your property safe? Does the act of the criminal serve to take away responsibility for you? Was it foreseeable? Stuff like that.
The only thing you can say about the losing party's lawyer is that their application of the law to the facts was unconvincing.
2007-01-06 04:14:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, this just demonstrates that the losing lawyer could not argue with supportive evidence in a more convincing manner. Truth and falsehood are generally not the dimensions of a lawsuit that are cared for. It may so happen that the wrong doer gets a complete acquittal. That could be a reason why lawyers are euphemistically humored as 'liars'.
2007-01-06 01:41:20 · answer #2 · answered by braj k 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, both lawyers are lying.
That's not really fair, but the truth of the matter is different from the facts of the matter. Each side is attempting to convince the judge and/or jury that their interpretation of the available facts is the more accurate one. All winning means is that either
A) The available facts overwhelmingly supported your version of the truth.
B) Your ability to weave a story or idea with the avilable facts was superior to your opponent.
C) A little of both.
It's like a debate. You can't debate the facts; you can only debate the meaning of the facts.
2007-01-06 01:28:04 · answer #3 · answered by Devil Dog '73 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Get a money order tomorrow morning and send it Fedex overnight to the lawyer. Then have them fax the paperwork to the DMV. If you still end up without a license for a few days and you don't think your boss will understand, you could call in sick until you get it back, though that is a risky strategy because if you get caught and fired from that, it will be harder to get another job than if you just get fired for having a suspended license.
2016-05-22 22:41:41 · answer #4 · answered by Katherine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lawyers don't just argue the facts, they also argue the law. Both sides can (and should) be telling the truth and lose on the interpretation and application of the law.
2007-01-06 02:09:32 · answer #5 · answered by leedoglaw 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. In fact, just because one party won does not mean that party was telling the truth. They presented facts and developed a theory more convincing than the loser.
2007-01-06 01:33:12 · answer #6 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
rarely in court does the whole truth come out. the winner just has the better liar(lawyer).
2007-01-06 01:30:36 · answer #7 · answered by kissmy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
maybe or the lawyer did not have cocrete evidence of whatever they were argueing about
2007-01-06 01:51:19 · answer #8 · answered by umaar m 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL, no, it's means he lost. It's all about winning and losing.....not the truth.
2007-01-06 01:33:34 · answer #9 · answered by anya_mystica 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the winner is the better liar
2007-01-06 05:26:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋