Supposedly bought an 044...

[Keegs]

watch it josh he might sue for defamation, as he clearly thinks you can sue ppl for stating the truth.....funny how the law doesnt agree with him.

[Beer Baron]

Picsorban?

here's dori before he started selling the fuel pumps. this is where we met.

[Keegs]

No no no, see as well as being an self certified  expert performance parts dealer, and pro race driver, Alex also dables in practising law in his spare time.

Dont make him unleash his wealth of legal expertise on us!

yea i hear he works for mines, dori, dodgy and co. whilst they arent certified and have no idea wtf they are talking about, they'll sure as hell offer advice for anyone whos willing to pay. When the advice turns out to be wrong they use their moto "you didnt need that anyway, its not my fault im dodgy" as a copout.

[Nismo_Boy]

watch it josh he might sue for defamation, as he clearly thinks you can sue ppl for stating the truth.....funny how the law doesnt agree with him.

It’s funny when shmucks start and bring the law into it, when the have zero idea them selves. Good entertainment none the less

[Beer Baron]

here's the watch. apparently even though it's not a rolex, it's actually better at the boost level in my part of the world. that's all that matters. the flow rate of the watch is not important. this one actually has 15 more minutes in each day at low boost.

[Nismo_Boy]

here's the watch. apparently even though it's not a rolex, it's actually better at the boost level in my part of the world. that's all that matters. the flow rate of the watch is not important. this one actually has 15 more minutes in each day at low boost.

So even though its not a Rolex, but is better then a Rolex, will it still dive to the same depth as a real Rolex? Not like I’ll ever need 150meters, I just need too know my flow depth rates,

[Laurence]

It’s funny when shmucks start and bring the law into it, when the have zero idea them selves. Good entertainment none the less

Hey... just because 33NIZ doesn't understand defamation law no need to get nasty.

[Nismo_Boy]

Hey... just because 33NIZ doesn't understand defamation law no need to get nasty.

I don’t know weather that was sarcastic or not, too be in keeping with the rest of the tread, But I was agreeing with 33NIZ. I believe his studying law anyway..

[Silver-Arrowz]

Yeah I'm a law expert too. After watching numberous TV shows like Law and Order, the practice, I'm expert now. I'm watching all CSI's now so hopefully by the end of the season I'll be a forensics cop.

[Laurence]

Nismo-Boy: Unfortunately in Australia you can sue people for defamation, even if what they are saying is "true", they are suing you for damage to their reputation.

[Keegs]

I don’t know weather that was sarcastic or not, too be in keeping with the rest of the tread, But I was agreeing with 33NIZ. I believe his studying law anyway..

yea.....i dunno whether hes being sarcastic or what...

[Laurence]

Sorry, got a phone call half way through typing this

In Australia you can sue people for defamation, even if what they are saying is "true"

You are suing them for damage to your reputation.

[Keegs]

Nismo-Boy: Unfortunately in Australia you can sue people for defamation, even if what they are saying is "true", they are suing you for damage to their reputation.

ummm....not exactly, i know im only a law student but the law of defamation isnt that extensive and you cant sue someone for defamtion if theyre simply stating something thats true about another. Defamation for damaging somones reputation is sought only if the person has stated untrue or misleading things that have lead to the damaging of the said persons reputation. If the statement is true, however it damages the other persons reputation, your still allowed to say it. Just like if a company sells you a dodgy car, your allowed to go to a current affair and have a winge..extreme example but it illustrates my point.

[Nismo_Boy]

Nismo-Boy: Unfortunately in Australia you can sue people for defamation, even if what they are saying is "true", they are suing you for damage to their reputation.

I’m no law expert, nor claim to be, but I have a very vague idea, as I having sued a police officer for defamation and final verdict is still pending in court.

But I don’t believe 33NIZ has said anything that would fall under this? Correct me if I'm wrong.

- Josh.

[Laurence]

watch it josh he might sue for defamation, as he clearly thinks you can sue ppl for stating the truth.....funny how the law doesnt agree with him.

My basic point is this statement that 33NIZ made is wrong.

[Keegs]

I’m no law expert, nor claim to be, but I have a very vague idea, as I having sued a police officer for defamation and final verdict is still pending in court.

But I don’t believe 33NIZ has said anything that would fall under this? Correct me if I'm wrong.

- Josh.

I also have experienced this law, fist hand. In a swimming pool case, the client had a pool installed that didnt meet the artificial rock look as promised by the pool company, it was dodgy and looked completely fake, there was white stains all over it caused by chlorine...(which wasn't supposed to happen) The client had bad mouthed this to a few of her friends and they expressed their concerns with the pool company upon buying the same product. The pool company sued the client for defamation and it was thrown out of court as the statements made by the client were proved true and in no way misleading, hence legal.

[Keegs]

by all means correct me if im wrong Gojira but as i have studied this law and seen it practiced in the past this is the way it has played out. Perhaps there can be many interpretations of this law..it wouldnt be a rarity.

[Merli]

Sorry, got a phone call half way through typing this

In Australia you can sue people for defamation, even if what they are saying is "true"

You are suing them for damage to your reputation.

If what was said was indeed true, that is a valid defence against a defamation law suit.

If you have a right to say it, you have a legal defence. There are three main types of defence against a libel (published defamation) or slander (oral defamation):

* what you said was true;

* you had a duty to provide information;

* you were expressing an opinion.

For example:

* You can defend yourself on the grounds that what you said is true.

* If you have a duty to make a statement, you may be protected under the defence of "qualified privilege." For example, if you are a teacher and make a comment about a student to the student's parents -- for example, that the student has been naughty -- a defamation action can only succeed if they can prove you were malicious. You are not protected if you comment about the student in the media.

* If you are expressing an opinion, for example on a film or restaurant, then you may be protected by the defence of "comment" or "fair comment," if the facts in your statement were reasonably accurate.

* There is an extra defence if you are a parliamentarian and speak under parliamentary privilege, in which case your speech is protected by "absolute privilege," which is a complete defence in law. The same defence applies to anything you say in court.

The same basic defences apply throughout Australia, although the things you have to prove to apply them may differ. For example, in some Australian states, truth alone is an adequate defence. In other states, a statement has to be true and in the public interest -- if what you said was true but not considered by the court to be in the public interest, you can be successfully sued for defamation.

[poyz]

Can we get back to bagging that guy - it's way more fun to read than this law stuff

[chaos]