Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> writes: > Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 3/11/2010 3:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In the system I envisage, such wouldn't normally be necessary, except >>> in complicated cases. > >> There is already small-claims court for very small cases. > > Depends on where you are. But your emphasis on "very" is apt for > anywhere I've lived. > >> But generally both sides in a dispute will want the most able advocates >> they can get, and they will continue to want that no matter what system >> is in place to adjudicate disputes. > > I disagree. Generally, both sides in a dispute want the dispute settled > rapidly and cheaply enough that an adverse decision won't risk their > standard of living. > > How cheap is cheap enough? I'd say, say, 10% of the value of the > claim. Anything above that, the system's broken. Rapidly enough? > Well, I can't see why a typical case couldn't be resolved in ~6 weeks. > It was in times past.
If the value of the claim is $2000000000, 10% pays a lot of attorneys. And "adverse decisions" can easily threaten your "standard of living" even without legal costs. The system has a problem when a favorable decision can threaten your standard of living. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
