In is it Fair, I was instructed by my Lady to prove my damages or loss first. She relied heavily on one principle which said there must be proof of actual loss or damage. Dissatisfied with that, I did my research. Not because I cannot accept defeat but simply because I'm not convinced. It is also part and parcel of my profession to find ways to reverse any finding. l had strong feeling the principle referred can be distinguished even if applicable. At least I can see whether I'm wrong and not wronged.
I found the answer two days ago. true enough, in almost similar problem, it is clearly stated that it does not require proof of actual damage or loss. What My lady should have done is, in the absence of proof of actual loss, to give reasonable compensation and applying good sense and fair play.
Now, I'm totally convinced that I was wronged.
I found the answer two days ago. true enough, in almost similar problem, it is clearly stated that it does not require proof of actual damage or loss. What My lady should have done is, in the absence of proof of actual loss, to give reasonable compensation and applying good sense and fair play.
Now, I'm totally convinced that I was wronged.