Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
Originally Posted by Mission146
So, essentially, just threatening to file a case is enough to compel the would-be defendant to have to respond? That is a stupid rule, in my opinion.
It's more than a threat.
But, less than filing a case. It seems unfair to put someone in a position where they are required to respond to anything without an actual complaint being filed...just seems like a strange procedure to have. What is the reasoning in favor of such a thing?