• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) Sue Marina Sands

If you go to a restaurant and order a dish, it does not taste good, you decided not to pay. That's why the restaurant sue the patron, in return the patron argued that the food served is not to standard and they are counter-sueing the restaurant for not providing an adequate atmosphere good enough for enjoying their food.

The rich really eat full very free. The patron should pay and move on rather than both parties spending so much money in courts just to have FACE.

1 wants money and face after being disgraced on papers. The other wants ego and wants to forfeit paying. That's how I am looking at the whole situation:p
 
The rich really eat full very free. The patron should pay and move on rather than both parties spending so much money in courts just to have FACE.

These aren't dissatisfied diners. They're pissed lawyers.
 
It's fantastic when 2 groups of elites have conflict with each other.
 
Poor analogy. Its was not substandard food. Its the wrong food. Food served on wrong utensils, entre served after main meal, ice cream for dessert instead of tiramisu.

Taste of food is subjective and people will laugh if you sue. Unable to deliver a speech due to blackout is not substandard food. umbrellas held over your head as you checkin is not substandard food.

Are you blur or what. You must be a clown to move on.




If you go to a restaurant and order a dish, it does not taste good, you decided not to pay. That's why the restaurant sue the patron, in return the patron argued that the food served is not to standard and they are counter-sueing the restaurant for not providing an adequate atmosphere good enough for enjoying their food.

The rich really eat full very free. The patron should pay and move on rather than both parties spending so much money in courts just to have FACE.

1 wants money and face after being disgraced on papers. The other wants ego and wants to forfeit paying. That's how I am looking at the whole situation:p
 
Back
Top