bloody minded legalistic sort of thinking

Post Reply New Topic

I read this "news of the weird" in the paper today, and it struck me as very perverse-

Australia's chief diplomat in Taipei, Taiwan, said in august that he was suing local veterinarian Yang Dong-shen for fraud because Yang backed out of euthanizing the diplomat Kevin Magee's sick 10-year-old dog. Instead, Dr. Yang "rescued" the dog, who is now thriving after he patiently treated her. Magee's lawsuit claims that his family vet recommended euthanization, that Mr. Magee had paid for euthanization, and that the dog, Benji, should have been euthanized. Dr. Yang said the fee Magee paid was for "medical care" and not necessarily euthanization.

am I the only one who thinks this is a bloody-minded legalistic sort of thinking?

Is the vet trying to charge the Australian guy for curing his dog when he didn't ask him to? Or did the vet just keep the dog for himself? If the vet is keeping the dog for himself, then tough toenails, Australian dude. IDK what the law is here, just my opinion.

It sounds to me like he's suing the vet because he lied about how hard it would be to nurse the dog back to health and recommended euthanasia. If the vet knew that the dog could be nursed back to health and lied to him about it, then he was deceiving the owner of the dog so that he could keep it for himself. If the vet let the owner of the dog know that it could have been nursed back to health, then he probably would've paid to have his dog nursed back to health instead of being euthanized, and he would've gotten his dog back afterwards.