3 ms·

"The Ford dealership that he sold his vehicle to cannot reasonably claim innocence" Why do you say that? You don't think that it's quite reasonable that the pr

by gist 11y ago

"The Ford dealership that he sold his vehicle to cannot reasonably claim innocence" Why do you say that? You don't think that it's quite reasonable that the process of removing a decal happens at another point in the disposal chain (later on, not at the dealer by convention)? Further to this point do you think that the standard of care should be "remove at dealership (and take a picture to document) because maybe this truck will be one that is used by ISIS (or someone who commits a murder or other crime)? Can he sue the dealer? Of course. But by a reasonable standard this is not an anticipated event. Also there are many trucks that are around where the decals are removed but you can still see the residue and previous information. What do you expect ... that they are going to paint over every single vehicle because maybe it might fall into the wrong hands? This is not a big problem relative to the amount of trucks or cars that end up being used in crimes. And we don't need more laws to prevent this type of outlier event, we have enough already.

flashman 11y ago
> But by a reasonable standard this is not an anticipated event. It might not apply in this case, but there is a legal doctrine called the "Eggshell Skull Rule"[1] which roughly means you're responsible for any outcomes of your negligent or intentional misbehaviour, even if those outcomes were comepletely unforeseeable. I'd be interested to know whether something similar applies here. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
michaelt 11y ago
I think the standard of care should be that, if you make an agreement to remove the decal before reselling, you have to remove the decal before reselling. That seems like fairly basic contract law to me?
- gozur88 11y ago
  Although verbal contracts are binding in most cases, it's going to be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the dealership agreed to remove the decal if they claim that isn't the case.

by gist 11y ago

flashman 11y ago

> But by a reasonable standard this is not an anticipated event. It might not apply in this case, but there is a legal doctrine called the "Eggshell Skull Rule"[1] which roughly means you're responsible for any outcomes of your negligent or intentional misbehaviour, even if those outcomes were comepletely unforeseeable. I'd be interested to know whether something similar applies here. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

michaelt 11y ago

I think the standard of care should be that, if you make an agreement to remove the decal before reselling, you have to remove the decal before reselling. That seems like fairly basic contract law to me?

gozur88 11y ago
Although verbal contracts are binding in most cases, it's going to be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the dealership agreed to remove the decal if they claim that isn't the case.