[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:52:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) |
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> But throwing out the whole "AGB" part does not help the defendant one
>> bit, so there was likely nothing to be gained by contesting this part of
>> the reasoning.
>
> Das Gericht hat rechtsfehlerhafter Weise die
> Prüfung eines Verstoßes von Art.81 EGV u. §1 GWB
> unterlassen.
>
> Das Urteil ist diesbezüglich *offensichtlich* falsch, denn
> einerseits wird die GPL als AGB bezeichnet, andererseits
> aber wie ein Individualrechtsgeschäft (read: Individualvertrag)
> behandelt, um den §139 BGB anwenden zu können. So geht es nicht!
"diesbezüglich" means "in this respect". I am not disagreeing with this
part of the comment for which you give no source. But going to appeal
in order to get the right verdict for all the right reasons instead of
the same right verdict for some wrong reasons as well is likely of
little interest to the defendant.
An upright defending lawyer would probably tell his client "we could
likely contest this part successfully, but it would not change the
outcome".
--
David Kastrup
- Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following, (continued)
- Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well, David Kastrup, 2010/02/23
- Re: Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well, David Kastrup, 2010/02/23
- Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following, David Kastrup, 2010/02/23
- Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following, David Kastrup, 2010/02/23
- Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following, David Kastrup, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, David Kastrup, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23