3 ms·
I know nothing, so here's a question: instead of framing it like the concrete harm was lack of profit (which is theoretical), could they frame it as the concret
by pmichaud 6y ago
I know nothing, so here's a question: instead of framing it like the concrete harm was lack of profit (which is theoretical), could they frame it as the concrete harm being that robinhood turned the situation from potentially profitable to no chance of profit?
Like if I'm fishing, I might not catch a fish that day, but if you collapse the pier I'm fishing from then you've concretely caused particular harm to my chances of catching a fish?
- jcranmer 6y agoI am not a lawyer, and so I generally only know what law I find out from reading cases that interest me. And that means that while I do know several general legal principles, I am generally ignorant on how those legal principles actually get applied in boundary cases. Answering this sort of question likely requires digging through cases at the district and circuit court level to find people who made this kind of argument, and seeing if the court bought it or not. I'm not paid to do that, and the people who are are paid big bucks to do so. But my suspicion is that you have to draw a pretty strong link between the actions of the defendant and your losses, to the point that you really no had other option than to eat the losses. In the case of the pier collapse, you might be able to swing that if there were nowhere else you could fish from. But in the case of Robinhood, I'd be surprised if you could sustain that argument, especially because you've signed this pesky contract.