3 ms·
It's voluntary on part of the owner. They understood the risk of handing off the goods. A lot of the law is based on intent - did you want to kill Jack or you
by ddalex 7y ago
It's voluntary on part of the owner. They understood the risk of handing off the goods.
A lot of the law is based on intent - did you want to kill Jack or you didn't see him when you reversed with your forklift?
So the intent there matters. What this guy can argue in a court is that the risk was misrepresented by the company, and then it becomes theft if he can prove that he was duped into this contract.
- mc32 7y agoNot only the risk it would happen, but this intermediary should take responsibility and should have insurance for these situations. The way it should be structured is, you let the item out to intermediary (who takes legal possession if not physical) and they in turn are on the hook for any loss, when re-let to a third party, at which point they would do a better job of betting at insuring themselves. The NY state attorney general should be looking at these unfair and asymmetrical arrangements (especially when they are basically EULAs)