No, I read that - it’s just not substantial. If the ding already existed, my point is that the driver is overlooking it in the photo we’re seeing. That is proof that it is not new damage and shouldn’t be considered in this case. I get that you’re trying to CYA, but it doesn’t need to be to this degree of hyper-vigilance.
And which bit of damage did you confess to? They have no evidence of what you confessed to doing.
deleted by creator
And how do you prove that ding is the one the note leaver caused?
deleted by creator
just because its a civil court doesnt mean it is based off vibes
“Yes Officer, he damaged my car. this damage right here. The Proof? I say so your honor. I rest my case.”
Shit, fr fr? No cap, imma slam this here gavel.
“Here’s a note that I promise they left”
deleted by creator
Like a photo of the driver circling the car, unable to spot where the damage was, immediately after reading the note? Hmmmm…
deleted by creator
No, I read that - it’s just not substantial. If the ding already existed, my point is that the driver is overlooking it in the photo we’re seeing. That is proof that it is not new damage and shouldn’t be considered in this case. I get that you’re trying to CYA, but it doesn’t need to be to this degree of hyper-vigilance.