On 8/20/2015 2:38 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 8/18/15 PDT 8:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:40:59 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:29:12 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 8/15/15 PDT 5:19 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/15/2015 7:52 PM, nospam wrote:

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.


Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

Yes, they can, but that doesn't mean there'd be an actual basis for
a suit.

Of course you do, John. A civil lawsuit is a claim for redress. The
suing party has to state what has been done that gives cause for
redress. That is the basis of the suit.

The defending party can claim the suit is without merit (which are
usually the first words out of the attorney for the defense's mouth),
that no harm has been incurred, and that action is frivolous, but that
doesn't mean that any of these claims are any more true than claim
brought by the bringer of the case.

The defense can ask for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient
basis, or for other reasons, but if the judge allows the case to go
forward there must be basis.

But on occasion the judge will throw the case out.

This situation is an example of somebody suing without there being any
valid basis for the suit. The point is that in this case the plaintiff
_can_ sue but they won't get very far.

I think I will file suit for mental distress over the pain and suffering
the woman endured when she clenched a cup of coffee from MacDonald's and
ended up scalding herself in a delicate region. O, the horror! (No, I
don't think the accident was amusing, just the lawsuit.)

I think the proper word for that lawsuit is disgusting.


--
PeterN