“I cannot meet with you. Please re-read the instructions concerning damages if you find for the plaintiff but find no damages (you will have to) find in the sum of $1.”
I have a problem understanding the logic here. If there were no damages, there were no damages. Why would they have to give him a dollar if there were no damages? Giving him a dollar implies that there was a dollar’s worth of damages.
What the hell is the matter with the law?
As I have been saying, the law as practised is intrinsically corrupt. It is not correctible in its present form. No one wants to hear it, but the days of "a nation of laws" are long gone.
Pretty simple:
When you're suing, your're claiming to have been damaged economically. The jury can't say "you're right", by finding in your favor, then turn around and say "you're wrong" by giving you nothing. If they want to say "you're wrong", they need to find for the guy you're suing.
Something tells me that a number of jurors were asking the same question. Let’s hope that the public gets to hear from them.
Giving him $1 though entitles him to hundreds of thousand of dollars in legal fees.
In a lot of cases, the law is a ass.
Getting a hell of a lot worse since about 1960.
There has to be some token monteary value. Even a simple contract is only binding and often $1 is used as the binding amount.