• NKBTN@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 天前

    I do love it when a big company has to spend hundreds of thousands on Barristers fees AND loses.

    • DrCake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 天前

      Except it’s Tesco so they’ll just raise the price of bread and milk or something to cover it

    • apis@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 天前

      Getting fees out of clients is like getting blood out of a stone.

      Those barristers may not get paid by Tesco for years & not without a fight - they’re prohibited from taking retainers and from turning down cases, and though they can refer cases on to other barristers, the circumstances in which they can do this are very limited.

  • zante@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    8 天前

    Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.

    [Karl Marx]

    I’d be interesting in hearing any defence of what I believe is indefensible.

  • Mex@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 天前

    Good, why could they not have also done this with the ferries though?

    • gnutrino@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 天前

      AFAIK it was due to the slightly weird jurisdiction that ships fall under due to moving between countries.

      • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 天前

        Sorta. Legal jurisdiction on a ship is the nation it is registered in. IE its flag nation.

        Shipping companies etc register ships in nations that give them advantages legally.

        Then hilariously enough mark ownership. In different nations as the 2 are not related. This allows tax advantages.