4 ms·
> if it is indeed his property he should have the right to do what he wants with it. The general principle is that you can do what you want with your property,
by victorNicollet 9y ago
> if it is indeed his property he should have the right to do what he wants with it.
The general principle is that you can do what you want with your property, but you must pay for any damages you cause in doing so.
The important question is whether you did cause those damages (maybe it was someone else's fault, or maybe the damages were inevitable and would have happened regardless of your action or inaction, or maybe you acted in good faith like any other person would have) which gives judges plenty to think about.
- grundee 9y agoA better way to frame this would be to consider if the artists were sculptors who were allowed to leave their sculptures for free on this property. Pieces of art that are not attached to the building make it more clear that destroying the art would leave the building owner liable for damages. Similarly, the artists who painted murals should have had the opportunity to remove their property from the building, which seems to be what they are arguing.