# Awesome lawyer letter **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 5, 2010, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722 "2010-01-05T04:43:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/101 "2010-01-05T23:19:59Z")
The fact that dealership itself said there was no damage when he brought he car back makes the inferrence that it was merely “dirty” the most reasonable and parsimonious. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/102 "2010-01-05T23:24:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Lame. I paraphrased the letter without peppering it with a bunch of “allegedlys.” Big fucking deal. You’re grasping at straws here. > > I’m going to go ahead and say the letter can be taken as factually accurate. Prove it can’t be. Show me any kind of rebuttal or contested fact from the dealership. You have utterly missed the point of that post. No one is disputing the facts as presented in the lawyer’s letter - he was sufficiently vague as to not specify any particulars. Specific particulars that you keep wanting to insert. THAT’S what we’re laughing at you about. When the letter says “$1,000 to fix the car” and you transform that to “$1,000 to clean the car”, you change what the letter says. > [@](#): > > Also the dealership itself said there was no damage when he brought he car back. One would almost think that they weren’t talking about dirt! Doesn’t the fact that the insurance company went out to assess the situation and came up with a $485 settlement figure clue you in that it wasn’t a car wash that fixed the problem? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/103 "2010-01-05T23:26:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The fact that dealership itself said there was no damage when he brought he car back makes the inferrence that it was merely “dirty” the most reasonable and parsimonious. Occum doesn’t apply when you don’t account for all other possible outcomes. I’m sure a mechanic could come up with a list as long as the average Cumfiesta actor’s member of things that could be wrong with a car that can’t be initially seen when a car is checked in. The list would probably included everything minus obvious body damage (or copious amounts of dirt). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/104 "2010-01-05T23:39:19Z")
Nah. It was dirty, that’s all. Maybe some flecked paint, which he tried to warn them about. The insurance company said its policy was just to pay the claims automatically, not that it had bothered to assess anything. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/105 "2010-01-05T23:41:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Lame. I paraphrased the letter without peppering it with a bunch of “allegedlys.” Big fucking deal. You’re grasping at straws here. Oh, the fingers in the Ear defense. Very well played. Of course, totally rewriting a letter that you yourself said wasn’t under dispute is a little different than omitting the word allegedly. Maybe you could show us where in the letter the word dirt or dirty is used. Allegedly. Or, instead, you can spend another three or four pages spinning your statements until they’re unrecognizable. I think we all know which one you’ll choose. > [@](#): > > I’m going to go ahead and say the letter can be taken as factually accurate. Prove it can’t be. Show me any kind of rebuttal or contested fact from the dealership. Pesky-ass burden of proof. Again, none of us are disputing what was said in the letter. You are the only one doing that. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/106 "2010-01-05T23:44:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I think that the most likely probability is that the client really hates this dealership because he’s of the opinion (justified or not) that they treated him really shabbily and threatened to sue him for saying that they suck, and the response (and more to the point, _public circulation_ of the response) is intended to _hurt_ them as much as possible - which is certainly what he’s achieved. > > The suggestion that they solve the matter amicably (I believe) isn’t meant seriously, it’s just another jab: to (very loosely 😃 ) paraphrase, ‘we can help you stop sucking so very badly, if only you would ask us how; then we can publish a joint statement in which you agree to be ritually sodomized in public for sucking’. I see. 😃 Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/107 "2010-01-05T23:56:49Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Oh, the fingers in the Ear defense. Very well played. Of course, totally rewriting a letter that you yourself said wasn’t under dispute is a little different than omitting the word allegedly. Maybe you could show us where in the letter the word dirt or dirty is used. Allegedly. Or, instead, you can spend another three or four pages spinning your statements until they’re unrecognizable. I think we all know which one you’ll choose. > > Pesky-ass burden of proof. > Again, none of us are disputing what was said in the letter. You are the only one doing that. I’m not disputing anything in the letter. I just paraphrased it as written. I added nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/108 "2010-01-06T00:02:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m not disputing anything in the letter. I just paraphrased it as written. I added nothing. It’s amazing. It’s been shown to you, yet you’d rather lie through your teeth than back away. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/109 "2010-01-06T00:07:04Z")
Nothing has been “shown to me.” You’re just choosing to dispute the most obvious amd reasonable inferrence for reasons which are beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/110 "2010-01-06T00:36:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Nothing has been “shown to me.” You’re just choosing to dispute the most obvious amd reasonable inferrence for reasons which are beyond me. FWIW, “dirty” was not what I would have considered the most reasonable inference, given the facts in the letter. Some kind of unseen damage is more reasonable than a $1000 cleaning bill to me. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/111 "2010-01-06T03:09:29Z")
Or non-existent damage. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/112 "2010-01-06T04:45:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Or non-existent damage. Possible, but extremely unlikely. If there wasn’t damage, he probably wouldn’t have agreed to pay the balance. If there wasn’t damage, he probably wouldn’t have said, “yup, my wife warned you”. But if it was my insurance company paying $1000 for a car wash, I’d be raising hell about it. Nor would I offer to pay $15 ($10 more than an average car wash around my parts) as a gesture of goodwill. ---
**Author:** ![toofs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@toofs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toofs)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/113 "2010-01-06T04:49:00Z")
I’ve always enjoyed [this fine example](http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back) of a lawyer telling another lawyer to go pack sand. The last few paragraphs are savory. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/114 "2010-01-06T05:23:08Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Possible, but extremely unlikely. If there wasn’t damage, he probably wouldn’t have agreed to pay the balance. He didn’t agree to pay anything. He disagreed with his insurance company’s decision to pay anything, and when the dealership tried to double dip him, he facetiously offered to pay the 15 dollar difference on the insurance company’s offer, not because he thought he actually owed them anything (he made it clear that he felt he owed them nothing), but as a way of letting them know he knew they were trying to scam him. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/115 "2010-01-06T05:39:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He didn’t agree to pay anything. He disagreed with his insurance company’s decision to pay anything, and when the dealership tried to double dip him, he facetiously offered to pay the 15 dollar difference on the insurance company’s offer, not because he thought he actually owed them anything (he made it clear that he felt he owed them nothing), but as a way of letting them know he knew they were trying to scam him. Everything but the first sentence is accurate. > [@](#): > > My client objected, believing the sum to be unjust, **but he acquiesced to his insurance company’s wishes.** ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/116 "2010-01-06T05:44:26Z")
He didn’t really have much choice. That’s not even close to agreeing that he _owed_ anything. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/117 "2010-01-06T05:52:27Z")
If you assume that he did damage worth $1000 (which is a possibility) then calling it double dipping seems harsh. ---
**Author:** ![Amber\_in\_Treasury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc79bd/32.png) [@Amber\_in\_Treasury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amber_in_Treasury)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/118 "2010-01-06T06:10:17Z")
Florida again… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/119 "2010-01-06T06:34:41Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > If you assume that he did damage worth $1000 (which is a possibility) then calling it double dipping seems harsh. I assume no such thing, but if they felt they were owed $1000, why did they offer to settle for half that, and why did they try to use subterfuge to get the other half. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/120 "2010-01-06T06:49:02Z")
I know you don’t assume that. I mean “If one assumes that…” Given that all we really have is one side of the story, I certainly wouldn’t be assuming that the customer’s version is the gospel truth. Or otherwise. Your apparent total faith in the customer’s version is touching and cute. I’ve been involved with law and insurance too long for that. The answer to the first part of your most recent question (“why did they offer to settle for half that”) may well have the usual pragmatic answer: because that’s all the insurer offered, and there is no practical economical means of collecting $500 from someone who doesn’t want to pay it, so you may as well take what you can get. The answer to the second part of your question (“why did they try to use subterfuge etc”) is in the first part of your question. They probably felt they were owed $1000. So they were trying to get the money. Not actually too hard to understand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722.md?page=7)