gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:41:43 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); United States v.  Clark County, Ind., 113
>> > F.Supp.2d 1286, 1290 (S.D. Ind. 2000). The court will dismiss a
>> > complaint for failure to state a claim only if it "appears beyond
>> > doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
>> > claim which would entitle him to relief."
>> 
>> So what did you not understand in that?
>
> I understand it fully, I believe.

Well, so it appears beyond doubt that Wallace can prove no set of
facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.

> Why did you snip out the part on determination?

Irrelevant.

> "In making its determination, the court accepts the allegations in
> the complaint as true, and it draws all reasonable inferences in
> favor of the plaintiff."
>
> Wallace alleged predatory pricing.

But he brought forth no set of facts in support of his claim.

> Whatever. But under 12(b)(6) standard, "the court accepts the
> allegations in the complaint as true, and it draws all reasonable
> inferences in favor of the plaintiff."

Sure.  The court accepted that Wallace did not misstate any _facts_.
It is just that the facts he stated can't be construed to constitute
predatory pricing.

> Wallace alleged predatory pricing and "predatory pricing has the
> requisite anticompetitive effect" (ARCO).
>
> Do you follow me, dak?

But Wallace brought forth no facts whatsoever compatible with his
claim of predatory pricing as defined by the requisite laws.

So there is no case.  It's like suing somebody for rape because he has
been drying his underwear on a clothesline in public sight.  The judge
can perfectly well accept that indeed there were underwear on the
clothesline, but that still does not meet the legal definition of
rape, and there is no point in calling witnesses in that could
describe the exact state and location of the clothesline in question.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]