Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iJohnHenry, Feb 24, 2012.
Well, what does the MR legal team think of this quirky decision??
Modern Times ...
I'm sure FB will make a business model out of it and charge both parties for beeing the middle man.
With respect to privacy: thats fine. FB is known for its high standards
and one will never loose overview about all claims done in life time; that's cool.
The big problem is that's no one has the obligation to watch notifications for messages in FB; I'm not often go there myself. Easy to miss.
But when an proven active account: why not.
It's good in my view and an expected natural extension of methods of communication. We'll see communications expanded in many areas of law to include internet mediums like FB, Twitter and whatever comes up next. I remember reading test cases that set precedents for using fax, telephone etc back in the day in several areas. Seems silly now I guess
Many areas of law are trialed publicly so unless the case is very sensitive why not.
If you don't know where someone lives, you can post a notice in the local paper. Pretty sure that's even easier to miss (in PA at least).
Exactly. How do they prove "service"?
Perhaps Mark gets a kick-back from the claimant's attorney??
Well here there are approved standard methods of service, like post and by hand. If those are not possible then a judge can be approached and more unusual methods can be requested, it's about balancing someone's right to bring a claim and someone's right to know they are being sued. I expect things like the local paper and Facebook will be by permission of the judge only, and only if reasonable attempts at more conventional means have been made.
Given all the other problems that FB has this would not be a good idea IMO.