>John
>
>Thanks for pointing out this very interesting collection of letters. The
>lawyer, while doing her job as a hired gun, showed how the legal profession
>views what is right and wrong. I love how she said that they would make a
>special exception this one time. It just got me madder and madder with each
>lawyerly response to this gentleman.
>
>Bob Winters
The concept of 'right and wrong' are not relevant here. That's not what
lawyers are for. Corporations hire lawyers to create an appropriate and
comfortable reality for themselves, just like the rest of us.
The interesting part is the sudden shift of ground when the original
premise is challenged. Odd claims apparently based on adverse possession or
added value are merely circling manoevres. The 'special exception'
approach, which I have also experienced with insurance companies,
translates as "you're probably right; we can't afford to admit it because
it would set a dangerous precedent; here's what you want; go away and shut
up about it; if this turns out to be a bigger problem, we'll fight it in
future."
Lawyers and other people merely have different agendas. It ain't personal.
This lawyer would have seen herself as being quite reasonable and may have
assumed that the photographer was 'trying it on' having belatedly
discovered that his old prints were valuable. (Like a drunken artist
showing up at Sotherby's and demanding a percentage of the sale price).
Residual right will always be a tricky area to negotiate.
AndrewF
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|