Originally Posted by
cbn42
That is true, but we don't know whether that is because the law favors the client, or because the judge simply wanted to side with David over Goliath, or because there was a bribe or political pressure involved.
True. That thought had occurred to me. Not the bribe or political pressure - that is far more likely to come from the bank. The David over Goliath thing is more likely.
However, it is also worth noting that it was the bank that offered the signed contract into evidence as a valid contract. That can't look good for the bank.