...because their attorneys apparently thought that no evidence and a terrible argument were suitable substitutes for evidence and rational thought.
Asking honestly, do you think any argument or evidence would have mattered? I am not a lawyer, or do I understand trials, but I just wonder if it matters against a giant like Amazon.
In this case, no, because Amazon was on sound legal footing and had their ducks in a row before they took any action--basically, Amazon followed the letter of the contract. That said, not presenting any evidence to back up your claims (especially when the other side presents evidence to refute your claims), then compounding that by not even making a sound legal argument, is a great way to lose even the best case.
Similar threads
