your argument is valid but your tone is missing the point PP made. To reword what he said "there is no way this is criminal law, this needs to be argued as perhaps contract law with 'breach of contract' as the upper limit if it rises to that level"
you proceeded to argue the case the way he said it should be argued, but by quoting PP and challenging, you seem to be arguing with him, when in fact you are agreeing with him.
if you edit your comment, I could even delete mine :)
you proceeded to argue the case the way he said it should be argued, but by quoting PP and challenging, you seem to be arguing with him, when in fact you are agreeing with him.
if you edit your comment, I could even delete mine :)