mmmmmm

[netty106/fatcow]

> One evening, after attending the theatre, two gentlemen were walking down
> the avenue when they observed a rather well dressed and attractive young
> lady walking ahead of them. One of them turned to the other and remarked,
> "I'd give $250.00 to spend the night with that woman." Much to their
> surprise, the young lady overheard them remark, turned around, and
replied,
> "I'll take you up on that offer."
> She had a neat appearance and a pleasant voice, so after bidding his
> companion good night, the man accompanied the young lady to her apartment.
> The following morning the man presented her with $125.00 as he prepared to
> leave. She demanded the rest of the money, stating "If you don't give me
the
> other $125.00, I'll sue you for it." He laughed, saying "I'd like to see
you
> get it on these grounds."
>
> Within a few days, he was surprised when he received a summons ordering
his
> presence in court as a defendant in a lawsuit. He hurried to his lawyer
and
> explained the details of the case. His lawyer said, "She can't possibly
get
> a judgment against you on such grounds, but it will be interesting to see
> how her case will be presented."
> After the usual preliminaries, the lady's lawyer addressed the court as
> follows: "Your honour, my client, this lady, is the owner of a piece of
> property, a garden spot, surrounded by a profuse growth of shrubbery,
which
> property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specified length of
time
> for the sum of $250.00. The defendant took possession of the property,
used
> it extensively for the purposes for which it was rented, but upon
evacuating
> the premises, he paid only $125.00, one-half of the amount agreed upon.
The
> rent was not excessive, since it is restricted property, and we ask
judgment
> be granted against the defendant to assure payment of the balance."
> The defendant's lawyer was impressed and amused by the way his opponent
had
> presented the case. His defence, therefore was somewhat different from the
> way he originally planned to present it. "Your honour," he said, "my
client
> agrees that the lady has a fine piece of property, that he did rent such
> property for a time, and a degree of pleasure was derived from the
> transaction. However, my client found a well on the property around which
he
> placed his own stones, sunk a shaft, and erected a pump, all labour
> performed personally by him. We claim these improvements to the property
> were sufficient to offset the unpaid amount, and that the plaintiff was
> adequately compensated for the rental of said property. We, therefore, ask
> that judgment not be granted."
> The young lady's lawyer answered, "Your honour, my client agrees that the
> defendant did find a well on her property. However, had the defendant not
> known that the well existed, he would never have rented the property.
Also,
> upon evacuating the premises, the defendant removed the stones, pulled out
> the shaft, and took the pump with him. In doing so, he not only dragged
the
> equipment through the shrubbery, but left the hole much larger than it was
> prior to his occupancy, making the property much less desirable to others.
> We, therefore, ask that judgment be granted."
> In the Judge's decision, he provided for two options: "Pay the $125.00 or
> have the equipment detached from it's current location and provide it to
the
> plaintiff for damages."
> The defendant wrote a cheque immediately.
>

[p0rkus]

lmao

[Seb]

muhahahahahaha