View Single Post
  #14  
Old 22.02.2011, 13:48
Upthehatters2008's Avatar
Upthehatters2008 Upthehatters2008 is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: In the kitchen at parties.
Posts: 4,569
Groaned at 208 Times in 122 Posts
Thanked 6,078 Times in 2,378 Posts
Upthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Legal Action for overpayment

Quote:
View Post
I agree, hence the suggestion for a registered letter.


According to the OP, there was a contract.



Pre-emptive claims for what? Prevent them from filing a lawsuit - they have every right to. Prevent them from sending him more letters. Possible, but expensive. For any kind of civil claim based on an infringement of personality (as they call it here) he would have to prove that he has suffered some kind of harm, which, considering that he is back in London and has been fully paid, would be hard to prove to a Swiss judge. This is not the US. Any kind of legal proceedings, whether criminal or civil, that Bob initiates could prove to be very costly.


Which is why he shouldn't do anything other than writing a clear letter back to them until actual legal proceedings have been initiated.

1) Crimen Injuria / Defamation of Character or whatever the Swiss Roman equivalent is. No loss or harm has to be proved, Bob merely has to show he has been hurt by these false accusations. Given the severity and voracity of their initial letter, I would add shock to the hurt. They are accountable for the reckless letter and Bob has the right to remedy through the courts. They have no defense for their actions and if I were a Judge, I would consider them very grave accusations.
Given that the accusations are entirely false , the case is easy to prove. They will not defend it and will be advised by their own legal reps to withdraw or settle.
The amount of damages is irrelevant to the futility of defending such an action, they will end up paying much more in costs for both parties. The mere threat of an action against them will make them see the light, either by their own thought or proper legal advice.

2) They have a right, as does everyone, but they have no grounds.
3) True for every action, but if Bob is to be believed, they have no case and will lose. The loser pays the costs.
4) Claiming for (1) will make them realise both the gravitas of their accusations and the serious intent of Bob to defend. If they are trying it on, this will make them think twice more than a standard letter of denial. Strike first, strike hard.

Last edited by Upthehatters2008; 22.02.2011 at 14:04.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Upthehatters2008 for this useful post: