A Question about The Legal System with regard to Precedents
I know very little about law, but there is something I mustn’t understand because if things were as I understand them to be the legal system is just plain wrong and unfair, something that it defiantly should not be.
Consider this. Entity A sues entity B over something X. Now entity B may be poor and have no time so when the case goes to court they fail to provide any argument or reasoning at all as to why they should win the case. Entity A has heaps of time and money and comes up with lots of arguments and reasons as to why they should win. As a result the judge rules in favour of entity A. Then another entity C comes along which is doing the same thing as entity B, however this time they have taken the time and effort to come up with arguments of why they should win the case. Now lets assume that under the law entity C’s arguments are valid and prove that entity C should win. However because the case is the same as A vs. B, A will win in A vs. C because of the legal precedent set by A vs. B.
I am curious (I’m from Australia so I’m not sure about other legal systems) about what part of the above argument is incorrect, or is it correct and is the legal system really corrupt like this? Please leave your comments.