Perhaps you can show me where I said the tools were worth less than $300, then.
You quoted the law stating that it is legal for the cleanout crew to dispose of household items, if they’re estimated to be worth less than $300
Then someone points out that they threw out a garage full of tools, which is clearly worth more than $300.
Then you said “Really? How much is a garage full of tools actually worth, then?” while incorrectly assuming the tool owner was dead.
I guess you didn’t say that the tools were worth less than $300, you were merely skeptical and argumentative when people claimed a garage full of tools is obviously worth more than $300.
If I posted on Craig’s list my address and “garage full of tools, first person here with 300 dollars takes all” you’d smell burning rubber all over this tri-state area.
Yes, that’s fair. I thought the tools belonged to the dead guy until a few posts ago. I didn’t see the bit where the not-dead guy picked them up to redo the plumbing.
When a tool’s first owner dies said tool suddenly become worthless?
Do you even know which end of a screw driver to hold?
No, dumb shit. Old dead people typically don’t have shiny new tools.
Tools don’t depreciate as badly as most other goods though.
I accept that some insurance policies require you to pay more to get replacement value, though I can’t imagine why anyone would bother insuring for anything less.
I’m still surprised that you assumed original value was all WF would have to pay the people they stole from. That would leave thee victims substantially out of pocket and would hardly be a deterrent for the bank.
To be fair, if the tools were old-school Craftsman they’d probably be worth more than shiny, new Craftsman POS.
And let us not forget emotional distress. In Texas, to make such a claim you need only a bit of nausea or headaches over the issue and loss of the property. A few years ago there was a trial in a very conservative county here. A local, relatively-beloved dealership did not do recall work on a vehicle while it was in the shop for an entirely different issue. The recall issue involved a possible fire hazard via the ignition system if I’m not mistaken. One night the vehicle caught fire burning down the family’s house but not injuring anyone.
The jury was quite generous with the emotional distress award and damages based on sentimental value both of which are really quite subjective awards. Exemplary damages and IIRC treble damages for violating our Deceptive Practices Act were also awarded. So were attorneys’s fees, but those were based on a statutory allowance as plaintiffs were consumers in relation to the dealership.
Given the actual actions of the dealership, the local regard for it, and the very conservative venue, the verdict was considered surprisingly high amongst local lawyers-both plaintiff and defence.
Fuck, try ‘attorney’s fees’ and ‘defense.’ Need more caffeine!
It doesn’t sound like the bank that has the money grubbing greed here.
I’m not “assuming”. That’s how tort law works. Is it fair? No, not really, but that’s a different issue.
What, really? You could steal someone’s stuff and only be on the hook for the original amounts? That’s utterly insane - not just unfair, but stupid.
And I somehow doubt a jury in this case would award only original value cost, not just for the tools but for things like his dad’s WWI uniform.
Not in Star Wars!
Restitution works a little differently. I’m not sure how the value of stolen merchandise is calculated.
Also, not original value; actual value. The cost of the specific items at the time they were taken/destroyed. For tort purposes, your 13 year old dishwasher is worth whatever you could sell it for, not what you paid for it.
You really are not all that bright are you?
Or in other words, you don’t have a fucking clue about what tools, used or otherwise, are actually worth.
Admit you stuck your fucking foot in your mouth and move on man.
Well, yeah re restitution, but I think you’re thinking law school remedies class. Recovery for the lost items could be based on many creative claims. Dollars to doughnuts there’s a funky CA statute that can be tweaked to make a claim for more than just what the items were worth at the time they were improperly taken. Again, in Texas IIRC, subjective testimony as to sentimental value is allowed to calculate damages re property damage. Plus, you’d be surprised at the expert testimony as to valuation. Lordy, there are some whores out there with ridiculous damage estimations that can survive Daubert challenges. If a jury thinks plaintiffs were treated wrongly they nearly always go with the ho as well as the highest sentimental value they can.
General law re damages is all well and good, but damn, you should see the very creative ways plaintiff attorneys can plead such that you’re fucked if it survives summary judgment. And always remember, not ruling on a summary judgment or denying same are nearly always not appealable.
I bow to your (vastly) greater experience.
Was I bitchy? Hope not. Sometimes law school pisses me off since it rarely shows the illogical, unfair, or simple realities of practicing versus the mostly theoretical knowledge of law and practice.
After ~15 years of practicing, about every month l learn a new nuance of practicing completely contradictory with what the actual damn law and rules indicate
Sorry if I offended you.
I wouldn’t worry about it if I were you. He? was being an opinionated jerk who didn’t know WTF he was talking about it.
Hey, we all do that at one time or another…but this is the SDMB and this it the PIT for Pete’s sake. So suck it up when you get called out on your (or in this case his) stupidity.
No! I was actually bowing.
[QUOTE=billfish]
I wouldn’t worry about it if I were you. He? was being an opinionated jerk who didn’t know WTF he was talking about it.
[/QUOTE]
Still waiting for you to quote me, dipshit.