[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Indignation does not correlate to accuracy. Posters here are very indignant that "equitable" is not a noun and they are very indignant that an "equitable remedy" means something illegal. Rather than asking an attorney or visiting a dictionary, the posters angrily spew their interpretations on here.

The word "equitable" refers to the division of British courts into the legal ("at law") and the equitable (i.e. the chancery). The courts have different jurisdictions and different remedies. In the United States, the distinction remains, somewhat lessened by the federal rules of civil procedure.

There are thus different remedies, some of which are only available in an action at law, and some only available in an equitable action. Which precisely are available depends on the jurisdiction, but typically money damages are available in actions at law, but injunctive relief is available in equity.

Hasn't anyone here read the constitution? What do you think the 7th amendment means?

Also, because of the French influence on British law, many legal terms have the adjective following the noun, that is why "remedies equitable" is perfectly reasonable.

Anyway, despite the firm belief among posters that every successful bluff is "proof positive" of cheating (wow, the adjective follows the noun, I must not know English), and that an "equitable" remedy refers to a contract hit: no, this is not the case. An equitable remedy is just another form of legal remedy, distinct from a remedy at law.

Please return to your regularly scheduled indignation now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolute Poker reserves the right to pursue any and all remedies whether in law or equitable which may procure to it as a result of any unlawful and injurious actions...

[/ QUOTE ]
Does this make sense? I mean, grammatically?

edit: I mean, 'procure' is a transitive verb, and I don't know wtf 'equitable' is doing in there in that form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I looked up equitable to see if there was some noun form of the word I was unaware of, and no, it's just an adjective like I thought. It makes no sense whatsoever, and what remedies can you take outside the law anyways, order a hit on someone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it is either more incompetence or some weirdly scary threat.

Also, can someone explain to me what is important or new about this statement? I just can't imagine they would let auditors in if they thought for a second that something could actually be found.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice history lesson. But the phrase is, "in law or equity." See how nicely that flows? So remedies are "legal or equitable" in nature, or you seek redress "in law or equity." In any event, goofy phrasing has little to do with the merits of the evidence. Its just an interesting side note. But to the real point, if you think that this is about a few well placed bluffs, you are either daft (that's a nice English word, right?) or deliberately ignoring whats been set forth. I wonder why.