She Don't Have The Grounds

Not open for further replies.

Sky King

Thread Starter
Well-Known SatelliteGuys Member
Sep 9, 2003
One evening after attending the theatre, two gentlemen were
walking down the avenue when one observed a rather well dressed
and attractive lady walking just ahead of them.

One of them turned to the other and remarked, "I'd give $50.00 to
spend the night with that woman."

To their surprise, the young lady overheard the remark and
turning around she said, "I'll take you up on that." She had a
neat appearance and a pleasant voice, so after bidding his
companion goodnight, the man accompanied the lady to her
apartment where they immediately went to bed.

The following morning the man presented her with $25.00 as he
prepared to leave. She demanded the rest of the money stating
that, "If you don't give me the $25.00, I'll sue for it."

He laughed, saying, "I'd like to see you get it on these

The next morning he was surprised to receive a summons ordering
his presence in court as a defendant in a lawsuit. He hurried to
his lawyer and explained the details of the case. His lawyer
said, "She can't possibly get a judgement against you on such
grounds, but it will be interesting to see how her case will be

After the usual preliminaries, the lady's lawyer addressed the
court as follows:

"Your Honor, my client, this lady, is the owner of a piece of
property, a garden spot. Surrounded by a profuse growth of
shrubbery, which property she agreed to rent to the defendant for
a specified length of time for the sum of $50.00. The defendant
took possession of the property, used it extensively for the
purpose for which it was rented, but upon evacuating the premises
he paid only $25.00, one half of the amount of rent agreed upon.
The rent was not excessive since it is restricted property and we
ask that a judgement be granted against the defendant to assure
the balance."

The defendant's lawyer was impressed and amazed at the way his
opponent has presented his case. His defense, therefore, was
somewhat altered from the way he originally planned it.

"Your honor, he said, "My client agrees that the young lady has a
fine piece of property, that he did rent such a property for a
time and a degree of pleasure was derived form the transaction.
However, my client found a well on the property, around which he
placed his own stones, sunk a shaft and erected a pump, all labor
being personally performed by him. We claim these improvements to
the property were sufficient to offset the unpaid balance, and
that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for the rental of
said property. We, therefore, ask that judgement not be granted."

The young lady's lawyer comeback was thus, "Your honor, my client
agrees that the defendant did find a well on her property and
that he did make the improvements such as my opponent described.
However, had the defendant not known the well existed, he would
never have rented the property. Also, upon evacuating the
premises, the defendant removed the stones, pulled out the shaft
and took the pump with him. In so doing, he not only dragged his
equipment through the shrubbery, but also left the hole much
bigger than it was prior to his occupancy, making it easily
accessible to little children. We, therefore, ask that the
judgement be granted."

And she got it.
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)