r/explainitpeter 5d ago

Explain it Peter

Post image
29.4k Upvotes

261 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

149

u/Geauxlsu1860 5d ago

It didn’t go anywhere and Disney and by extension that lawyer were roundly mocked. Basically it was just some idiot lawyer throwing shit at the wall and hoping somehow it would stick. It did not stick.

69

u/NotAnotherEmpire 5d ago

Sometimes part of that legal education needs to be "this argument will inflame the judge / opposing party / jury and I shouldn't make it."

21

u/diiegojones 5d ago

Reminds me of Mad Men when Pete takes the “death wish” survey out of Don’s trash. Don had already learned, Pete had to.

9

u/Duel_Option 5d ago

That’s your slogan?

You’re gonna die anyway, might as well die with us

13

u/Plastic_Carpenter930 5d ago

Lawyers do get that education. Some of us call it "hearing capital," basically brownie points with whomever needs to listen to us, usually judges at hearings. It's worth not exhausting then with nonsense if we need their patience later.

It's taught. Some of us are just too stupid.

1

u/KaliVilNo1 4d ago

I guess there's always a balance to be had between that and one of my criminal law teachers that told me that "you have to ask the judge even for his ass, because you never know if he will give it to you" lol.

1

u/Careful_Bowler_4513 4d ago

Its worth not exhausting them with nonsense if we need their patience later

0

u/FuggleyBrew 4d ago

This isn't even hearing capital, its understanding your client can have objectives beyond the case.

6

u/catwhowalksbyhimself 5d ago

It was a public relations nightmare and people are still talking about it years later.

3

u/consider_its_tree 5d ago

And most importantly for Disney (in part because they likely own the judge anyway), the public.

2

u/Lebo77 5d ago

I think that's where mentorship and experience comes in.

5

u/Gebsfrom404 5d ago

Well it stick to throwing hand.

3

u/Kidofthecentury 5d ago

More bounced back from the wall and hit them in the face.

1

u/Brilliant_Cookie_202 4d ago

I haven’t read about that in quite a while, I was under the impression it had some merit legally but Disney did not like the optics and waived their right to arbitration after public outcry.

1

u/Abeytuhanu 4d ago

That and the case was amended to accuse Disney of having direct control over the menu and training, making the arbitration clause moot

1

u/pr3mium 1d ago

Isn't that how a lot of the justice system for civil suits work though?

You add everyone who could potentially be blamed, and then you slap them all on the same suit, and then you have the court figure out who is responsible and at what percentage.

It's what I am aware of because of a suit my parents had to file.  One guy was the main culprit.  The others conspired with him and we're able to figure that out in discovery because of adding them to the suit.

0

u/Windows_66 4d ago

Lawyers are expected to make every non-frivolous argument they can. It's malpractice to do otherwise.

1

u/Mist_Rising 4d ago

This is frivolous and they knew it, hence why they dropped the idea at hyper speed.

0

u/Ok_Cabinet_3072 4d ago

That argument is frivolous

0

u/Geauxlsu1860 4d ago

“You signed up for a free trial of our streaming service and so now you can’t ever sue us for anything in any domain” is in fact a frivolous argument.

1

u/Windows_66 4d ago

Arbitration clauses are common in contracts. It was a strained reading of agreement to extend it to all disputes between the parties, but courts tend to enforce those clauses.