To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
4 thoughts on “2015 Award for Most Bizarre Argument Advanced in Replies”
…I now embrace the sweet release of fixed fees…
It’s certainly….one way to look at it, I suppose!
Well I certainly have the front runner for most bizarre argument raised in Points of Dispute re departing from guideline hourly rates “In the event that the court is not with me and willing to consider an enhancement in this case, one should “start with a norm of 35%” (Brush v Bower Cotton & Bower [1993] 4 ALL ER 741 QBD)”
You can’t help but laugh at some of the replies you see. Then again, some of the things you see in PODs are equally laughable.
You have to give them credit for ingenuity – it’s certainly a novel argument.
Wrong… but novel. Could you then make a counter-wrong-argument that costs are not recoverable at all via the operation of the indemnity principle?
After all, if they’re using the standard CFA model, their definition of “win” will likely include reference to a “more avantageous sum”… and they seem to have strange ideas about how that works.
Fair play to whomesoever drafted those Replies. The system is descending – in ever decreasing circles – into farce, why shouldn’t we?