Depending on the state Carl may have won. He has the right to protect his property. States determine how far those rights go. HOwever, imo, he repeatedly told the man to let go and by the man trying to pry it from Carl's hand, committed assault. Carl hitting the man was an act of self-defense. Any one offering legal council could've gotten Carl off, but maybe it came down to money. However, the court ordering him to move is unrealistic. This is possibly the weakest part of the movie. As Carl did flip out, but the workers were in the wrong first. In fact, Carl could've countersued for stress caused due to his property being damaged and the encounter with the worker.
reply
share
annierob-2
12 years ago
It may be that in losing the case he had legal costs and compensation payments to meet, and the only way to do that was to accept the developers offer for his house. In that way the court didn't "order" him to move but in the same way, they forced him to.
reply
share
codeman_nz
12 years ago
"It may be that in losing the case he had legal costs and compensation payments to meet, and the only way to do that was to accept the developers offer for his house. In that way the court didn't "order" him to move but in the same way, they forced him to."
That is probably what was going through the CEO's mind when he was staring at the house. He would have known that Carl did not have much money and so they would have made him an offer that they would drop the case and possibly pay for him to go to the retirement home in exchange for his property, or drag the case on for ages with the legal costs piling up where he would have probably lost and had to pay for compensation; in which case he would have lost the house anyway leaving him with nothing.
reply
share
vule69
12 years ago
The woman cop says:''I don't see you as danger to society'' when she drops
him of after court date.
So that was the ruling.
reply
share