Barry G

The argument is one in which all possible outcomes prove the proposition, so there is no way of disproving the proposition.

For example :

X has a leg injury. After the operation, her doctor Y says she cannot walk safely and should not try to do so, or she will be putting herself at risk of further injuries.

If X does not attempt to walk, Y says "You cannot walk. This confirms my opinion."

If X attempts to walk but falls over and injures herself, Y says "You cannot walk without incurring an injury. This confirms my opinion."

If X attempts to walk and falls over but does not injure herself, Y says "You were lucky not to injure yourself. What you did was not safe. This confirms my opinion."

If X walks round the hospital ward and does not fall over or injure herself, Y says "That was very foolish. The more you walk the greater the risk you are putting yourself under. This confirms my opinion."

I appealed in a civil case in Scotland (UK) in November 2013. I won and the case was remitted to another Sheriff in the lower court. I wish to know what effect the appeal had on the "findings in fact/ findings in fact and law" made by the first Sheriff.

My appeal was against the first Sheriff's conclusion, his "finding in law." I did not dispute his basic "findings in fact" or his "findings in fact and law" (intermediate inferences). One of these findings related to a contentious issue, and was in my favour.

The 2nd Sheriff has made an intermediate decision which ignored the 1st Sheriff's finding in my favour on the contentious issue. She stated that she did not consider herself bound by the earlier judgement. She has has heard new evidence relating to the contentious issue, but has not stated any new conclusion about it.

Was the 2nd Sheriff right to ignore the findings of the 1st Sheriff? My view is that they are at least persuasive (perhaps even binding) unless and until the 2nd Sheriff made contrary findings.

I also wish to know what legal precedents there are relating to this issue.