4 ms·

Why did you dishonestly call it a nitpick, rather than the essential point that it is? > Your point merely buttresses my point Um, no. That's a ridiculous dis

by jibalt 10y ago

Why did you dishonestly call it a nitpick, rather than the essential point that it is? > Your point merely buttresses my point Um, no. That's a ridiculous dishonest claim. > which is that 400k is far more than can and should be reasonably expected. No, the whole point of the "nitpick" is that this is false. The landlord quite reasonably expected to pay more if he were to go to court. There's a good reason for this expectation: because the landlord intentionally violated the law for their own gain at the expense of the interests of the tenant. The landlord is a bad bad person who did a bad bad thing, and should be treated accordingly.

jimmywanger 10y ago
I guess this is you missing the point. > Why did you dishonestly call it a nitpick, rather than the essential point that it is? You should understand the point being discussed before accusing people of dishonesty. The point buttresses my point, if read using any definition of basic reading comprehension you'd chose to use. > The landlord quite reasonably expected to pay more if he were to go to court. And my point is that the unlawful eviction of somebody, even with punitive damages, shouldn't rise to even the same order of magnitude of 400k, let alone a huge amount higher. That's enough to buy a new house in much of the rest of the country. The punitive damages should be something to do with the total lawyer fees in the case, as well as the expenses to move, as well as a deterrent amount. NOT the ability to buy an entire new house, or an amount which might reasonably requiring the person being sued to sell the house. Now is the point clear to you?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > And my point is that the unlawful eviction of somebody, even with punitive damages, shouldn't rise to even the same order of magnitude of 400k Why not? > That's enough to buy a new house in much of the rest of the country. So what? What does the rest of the country have to do with it? The rest of the country isn't where the wrongful deprivation occurred. > The punitive damages should be something to do with the total lawyer fees in the case Lawyers fees and court costs are often awarded in addition to any actual and/or punitive damages awards, and are, like actual damages, compensatory rather than punitive. > as well as the expenses to move Again, that's compensatory rather than punitive damages, and it's what's required when landlords comply with the notice and other restrictions applicable to OMI evictions. > as well as a deterrent amount. Actually, that's the only part that is punitive in nature. You've basically identified the relocation payment they would have had to make if they complied with OMI rules, punitive damages, and fees and costs, but not any compensation for harms due to the failure to observe the procedural (notice/timing) requirements of Omi rules or for not paying when due. Now on top of what all that would have been in the case of a trial, add in the value to the defendant of not admitting wrongdoing, and avoiding the costs (including time costs and stress) of litigation, and you've got a reasonable upper bound on a settlement. > NOT the ability to buy an entire new house, or an amount which might reasonably requiring the person being sued to sell the house. Well, it's clearly not enough to buy an entire new house in the area in question, so that's irrelevant. And I hardly see how the latter standard is justified, since that's dependent wholly on the defendants financial state. You certainly haven't established that the actual number here doesn't fit even your initial description of the elements that would make a reasonable amount.

by jibalt 10y ago

jimmywanger 10y ago

I guess this is you missing the point. > Why did you dishonestly call it a nitpick, rather than the essential point that it is? You should understand the point being discussed before accusing people of dishonesty. The point buttresses my point, if read using any definition of basic reading comprehension you'd chose to use. > The landlord quite reasonably expected to pay more if he were to go to court. And my point is that the unlawful eviction of somebody, even with punitive damages, shouldn't rise to even the same order of magnitude of 400k, let alone a huge amount higher. That's enough to buy a new house in much of the rest of the country. The punitive damages should be something to do with the total lawyer fees in the case, as well as the expenses to move, as well as a deterrent amount. NOT the ability to buy an entire new house, or an amount which might reasonably requiring the person being sued to sell the house. Now is the point clear to you?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> And my point is that the unlawful eviction of somebody, even with punitive damages, shouldn't rise to even the same order of magnitude of 400k Why not? > That's enough to buy a new house in much of the rest of the country. So what? What does the rest of the country have to do with it? The rest of the country isn't where the wrongful deprivation occurred. > The punitive damages should be something to do with the total lawyer fees in the case Lawyers fees and court costs are often awarded in addition to any actual and/or punitive damages awards, and are, like actual damages, compensatory rather than punitive. > as well as the expenses to move Again, that's compensatory rather than punitive damages, and it's what's required when landlords comply with the notice and other restrictions applicable to OMI evictions. > as well as a deterrent amount. Actually, that's the only part that is punitive in nature. You've basically identified the relocation payment they would have had to make if they complied with OMI rules, punitive damages, and fees and costs, but not any compensation for harms due to the failure to observe the procedural (notice/timing) requirements of Omi rules or for not paying when due. Now on top of what all that would have been in the case of a trial, add in the value to the defendant of not admitting wrongdoing, and avoiding the costs (including time costs and stress) of litigation, and you've got a reasonable upper bound on a settlement. > NOT the ability to buy an entire new house, or an amount which might reasonably requiring the person being sued to sell the house. Well, it's clearly not enough to buy an entire new house in the area in question, so that's irrelevant. And I hardly see how the latter standard is justified, since that's dependent wholly on the defendants financial state. You certainly haven't established that the actual number here doesn't fit even your initial description of the elements that would make a reasonable amount.