whereishere

So I just watched a show in which she ruled in favor of the defendant in back to back cases. The first case the caterer broke the customers dining table and it would cost $250 to fix but the customer also signed a contract to pay $650 for the food which was served and enjoyed. The caterer sued for the $650, which he was denied and in turn made to pay $250. In reality and actual justice the defendant should have paid $400, not the $650 sued for. He won $250 plus a free dinner for 40 guests. Stupid.

The second one she allowed a lady that killed a man's trained falcon, which a golf course hired to rid them of problem ducks, to go without being held responsible for the man's $10000 loss and business loss. The lady said at the end, "I'll take a duck over a falcon any day." So stupid. Not even the point. She killed a majestic bird because she felt it was horrific that a bird was killing a bird. So the judge basically agreed that it's legit to kill a bird to show that it's wrong for a bird to kill a bird.

You never see real judge shows totally dismissing the original legitimate claim in favor of absurd defense, but here you see it back to back and it just pisses you off enough for a person,me, who doesn't write show reviews, ever, to get online, sign up for an account, and go through the trouble to make people aware so as not to waste their own time on watching this quack judgery*.

Total bullshit People.

*my awesomely created word that should be included in the next edition of Websters.