The last time I was stressed at the unfairness of the legal system was when we had an ADR case. For those that do not recall (!) the arbitrator basically found in our favour (that we had not broken the contract) but still insisted we paid money to the customer and that we wrote off a load of outstanding invoices that post dated the complaint, oh, and also that we paid the arbitrator for this madness. I got very cross.
I know life is not fair, but some things in life have the scope and possibility to be reasonably fair, and the legal system is one of those things that should at least try for that aim.
Well, today I am facing a similar annoyance as this bozo in Scotland suing use for £3k, even though the service was fine, and even though we limit our liability (something we point out on the order form itself). He is just trying it on.
It seems that we have no way to get this resolved without someone going to Scotland for a hearing, even to dispute the jurisdiction of the case - where the key reason for doing so it to avoid a trip to Scotland. It seems cheapest is probably to engage a solicitor in Scotland and that we are unlikely to get our costs for that even if we win. This is all in spite of the fact that the case is plainly bogus as the pursuer (claimant) is a newly formed company created after all of the events in the claim and with which we have never had any dealings.
It is almost as if Mikey Mouse, the magic castle, fairyland could issue a summons and force someone to go to the cost and hassle of defending the case. Why don't courts have some option to at least question the basic validity of the claim without having a hearing - even if we had to pay the judge a fee to look at it for us before considering a hearing. That would be sensible for stupidities like this.
The court say no - we have to either admit the claim, or say we will go to the hearing. The solicitor suggested it is worth trying too reach an out of court settlement. That just seems wrong.
Heck, the guy did not even bother with any notice before action or threats or try to negotiate, yet this breach in process is just ignored - we have to go to the hearing.
Last time I got wound up I did come up with a somewhat hypothetical idea that would be morally wrong, and somewhat psychopathic: What we need is a sort of hit man clause in a will. Well, not quite actual hit man, but something whereby money goes to a company that specialise in hounding someone - taking all legal (or untraceable) means to make someone's life hell. Bogus court causes. Starting rumours. Anonymous tips of child abuse, fraud, terrorism, whatever. Just everything to make someone's life a misery as a parting gift if they are still alive. OK, it is hypothetical, but it would feel great to say that you are "adding someone to the list" that is in your will and that park that anger and annoyance.
The problem is that I am too nice to actually come up with something like that. Shame.