| rocketpig said: Actually, yes. That's not far from the truth. You can go ahead and argue it but I'll take my girlfriend's word for it since she's finished about eight years of schooling, passed the bar, and is now a law clerk for a judge and writes about the law and advises rulings for the judge on a daily basis. Whether she mentions the company name or not has nothing to do with what we're talking about here and it proves nothing. On both sides of this case, there simply isn't enough relevant fact to do much of anything for or against either other party. What will the boss sue for? You can't sue for speculative damages. Therefore, he has to prove that her email caused him financial harm (ie. line-by-line breakdown of damages, not "I think I've lost clients"). Public embarrassment is not a legitimate reason to sue in the eyes of the court. In her case, she has to prove that he called her a HPOA, which will be incredibly difficult because it's her word versus his and the third party on the phone will probably deny having heard it just to stay out of the mess. Who wins from a lawsuit stemming from this farce? Short answer, no one. Why do you think the Enquirer gets away with writing the shit it does? It's just too bloody hard to go after them and prove with a dollar amount the damages that have been wrought. |
Well then 'Merica is completely ridiculous.
Well at least one damage is quantifiable. The cost of training a new employee, and the loss of production for having a missing employee.
My point with what I said previously is that, she should not be afraid to give the name of the company if this story is true and what you say is true. If the company does exist, and she did this knowing that they couldn't do anything about it, then she must have legal knowledge or support, and so would know that she could name the company. I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to do this kind of thing without knowing what the possible repurcussions would be (and even if she is, she must have talked to some people about it before she did it, who would warn her to be careful). Logically, if the story is true, she can name the company, if it's not, she won't name the company. (Based on what you've said the law allows)
