Ok I know there is no way to top Matt's posts especailly since I no longer have a life besides reading law school cases. With that high beat lead in I thought this one case was funny. This women contracted with a dance studio to teach her to dance and paid them over the course of two years $31,000 (this case took place in 1968) and they told her she showed great potential. Typically, for a contract not to be valid through fraud it has to be about a fact. For instance, I sold Peter my car and told him it was fine but it didn't have wheels. The court made a special circumstance in this case because she was such a bad dancer that obivously the dance studio was lying to her. The exact quote was, "the lessons sold to her (were) in total disregard to true physical, rhythm, and mental ability of the plaintiff." So basically this lady not only go screwed out of a bunch of money but a court of law is saying she is a really horrible dancer.
And that is the most exciting thing that happened to me this week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
that woman was me.
ReplyDelete