Why Proof/Facts/Evidence Is Not Always True

[BettorsChat]

Paper trails and signatures will stand up in every court in this country savage. That's fact. Your theories are just that, theories. You wouldn't even have to sit down before you lost your case in a court of law. It doesn't matter what the salesman does/doesn't say. It is still your responsibilty to read it before you sign it. Unless you had that part re-written, you are obligated to do as says and you didn't. There is zero picking and choosing there. Cut and dry. It sucks that you are wrong but you are.

[harold_bush]

Wayne's point is really the relevant one anyway, a signed contract is binding and negates EVERYTHING else. Unless you recorded the conversation with your salesman, you have no proof (what matters in court) that conversation ever took place. Even if the conversation was documented, he still didn't say you could have pets, he just said he didn't hear you talk about it. If you were even able to locate the salesman I would guarantee you he wouldn't conveniently forget the conversation took place, and you would be screwed. Absent of any documentation of the conversation you would lose this 100 times out of 100 times. Even Judge Judy could tell you that.

[harold_bush]

As far as not liking the main lady, who gives a shit? Again, are you 5 years old? I don't like that person so I'm not going to listen to them? Really? Look, Obama is the chief law enforcement officer in this country.....I can't fucking stand the guy and think he is the biggest danger this country faces, but I can't just disobey the law and say I hate Obama so I don't have to follow the laws of the land.....retarded logic.

For the record, the biggest danger and frauds of all time were George Bush and Dick Cheney.

I don't like Bush or Cheney either, so I don't know why you are telling me about it. That said, it does crack me up that people like you are still blaming Bush for Obama's miserable policies. At what point does the blame start falling on Comrade Obama......6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 3 years? 4 years?

[savage1]

Paper trails and signatures will stand up in every court in this country savage. That's fact. Your theories are just that, theories. You wouldn't even have time to sit down before you lost your case in a court of law. It doesn't matter what the salesman does/doesn't say. It is still your responsibilty to read it before you sign it. Unless you had that part re-written, you are obligated to do as says and you didn't. There is zero picking and choosing there. Cut and dry. It sucks that you are wrong but you are.

And the fact that one lady was allowed to buy in for her two indoor cats when no one else was given that optioon-explain that if you can.
She signed the same agreement I did, and there was nothing about buying heer way in.

[vols fan]

I fucking hate cats

[BettorsChat]

LMAO We are now going from a cat to the Presidents'

[BettorsChat]

I fucking hate cats

Watch your step there bro because I love cats

Signed,
KazPuss

[vols fan]

Watch your step there bro because I love cats

Signed,
KazPuss

Kaz will love that

[savage1]

Wayne's point is really the relevant one anyway, a signed contract is binding and negates EVERYTHING else. Unless you recorded the conversation with your salesman, you have no proof (what matters in court) that conversation ever took place. Even if the conversation was documented, he still didn't say you could have pets, he just said he didn't hear you talk about it. If you were even able to locate the salesman I would guarantee you he wouldn't conveniently forget the conversation took place, and you would be screwed. Absent of any documentation of the conversation you would lose this 100 times out of 100 times. Even Judge Judy could tell you that.

And the four years where the cat was clearly visible for four years(and nothing was said)and the fact that another lady was allowed to buy her way in with the cats whereas I was not-what would judge Judy say about that(even assuming that she didn't buy into what the salesman said or the "personal property" angle argued by my attorney since the cat stayed in 100% of the time)?

[savage1]

I fucking hate cats

I bet you like "pussy" though.

[harold_bush]

And the four years where the cat was clearly visible for four years(and nothing was said)and the fact that another lady was allowed to buy her way in with the cats whereas I was not-what would judge Judy say about that(even assuming that she didn't buy into what the salesman said or the "personal property" angle argued by my attorney since the cat stayed in 100% of the time)?

Dude, I don't know how else to explain it, it is a very simple concept. If you signed an agreement that said no pets, then the court would rule that you weren't allowed to have the cat if this were taken to court.

I don't know what the other lady signed, but if her agreement said no cats, then she too would would shit out of luck if the issue were taken to court. If her agreement allowed her to have cats, then she is allowed to have cats. I don't understand the confusion.

[BettorsChat]

What about Statutes of Limitations? LOL

[savage1]

Dude, I don't know how else to explain it, it is a very simple concept. If you signed an agreement that said no pets, then the court would rule that you weren't allowed to have the cat if this were taken to court.

I don't know what the other lady signed, but if her agreement said no cats, then she too would would shit out of luck if the issue were taken to court. If her agreement allowed her to have cats, then she is allowed to have cats. I don't understand the confusion.

"DUDE"-I don't know when she signed the agreement relevant to cats-whether it was at the time she moved in or whether she obtained the cats later on and went to the office and/or someone ratted on her;the point is she was given an opportunity to buy her way in.
I moved in before her, was given an implicit ok to have an indoor cat by the salesman(ok we disagree on that), was told later I could not have cat and was NEVER given an opportunity to "buy" my way in before I received my initial warning to get rid of the cat.
I would bet you anything that if I presented this in addition to everything else to an impartial jury or Judge Judy(bringing in this lady to testify) they/she at the very least would state that before I was ordered to get rid of the cat, that I should have been afforded the same opportunity as the woman(remember at the time I spoke to this woman right before my hearing and right after the dog incident it was the rule that pets were not allowed period-nothing on the official books about buy-ins).

[BettorsChat]

Savage could have argued mental anguish as well

[mavskidd02]

Over/Under on the length of this thread:

Over 7 pages (-115)

Under 7 pages (+110)