Originally Posted by
Bear96
You (and many others here) are seriously misunderstanding what this ruling was about. It was not a ruling on the substantive merits of the case. It was only saying that *IF* what the plaintiffs are alleging is true, there may have been a breach of contract. That is all. It did not remotely even touch on the issue of whether what the plaintiffs are alleging is true or not.
Don't bother, in his(?) eyes one is either a wise an virtuous man if one agrees with him or a nonsensical person who clearly doesn't understand the law if one doesn't agree with him.