|
WCH - I do not remember making the argument based on "its not fair". It seems again that you try to create the strawman and then smite him down hard and fast while the crowd cheers your manly and heroic efforts.
By argument is based on the very simple that Party A sold something to Party B. They were paid for it. But before Party B could exercise some of their rights granted to them under the sale, Party A takes extra-ordinary additional steps which have the direct effect of rendering their investment - MADE TO Party A - now worth little to nothing since they can not use it without risking ridicule, incurring financial damages or risking a lawsuit. And who would do that suing in court you ask?
Guess who folks? Its Party A.
Now I tried to substitute legal terminology here to get past the use of hot button names like Zaentz, Jackson, JRRT, CT, Estate, and all the rest who come wrapped up in this situation.
And if anyone cannot fill in the proper names, Party A is JRRT and his heirs, Party B is UA and their subsequent rights holders.
Maybe with just the intiials its a little more less emotional.
|