3 ms·

I'm guessing the web site has telemetry and analytics and can show the conversion rate going down. If the web site sells something, you could even put a dollar

by fefe23 6y ago

I'm guessing the web site has telemetry and analytics and can show the conversion rate going down. If the web site sells something, you could even put a dollar amount on the damage. I'm probably misunderstanding your argument here, but if, say, Google steals your bike that would be purely economic damage. Surely the UK legal system would still punish that...!?

PeterisP 6y ago
Stealing your bike is an inherently illegal action, so the culprit is also liable for losses caused by that. Having a browser you develop show "we don't like this site" is not illegal per se; and by default if something you have the right to do causes a loss to someone else, that's their problem - for example, if I put out a new excellent product for sale at a great price, that causes clear, measurable and provable economic damage to my competitors, possibly even bankrupting them, but that's their problem, not mine, because I did nothing wrong and did not owe them any duty to preserve their profits. There is the concept of "tort" which may apply for such losses, but that generally requires specific intent (which is absent here), negligence (which requires the existence of some obligation or duty of care, which IMHO is absent here, Google has no obligation to show your site correctly in Chrome) or the narrow cases where strict liability applies, which also is absent here - the parent post goes into detail of why in this particular case a tort claim is likely to not succeed.
matthewheath 6y ago
> if, say, Google steals your bike that would be purely economic damage. Surely the UK legal system would still punish that...!? Yes, they would. This is because there is a specific Act of Parliament known as the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 which specifically addresses the tort of "trespass to goods" also known as "wrongful interference with goods". You would need to prove that Google "deliberately" interfered with your bike, on the balance of probabilities. However, Google would have two defences: - Consent (e.g. you trespass on to their land, and they clamp or detain your bike - you are seen as consenting to the consequences of your trespass, namely the clamping, so cannot argue wrongful interference with goods) - Distress damage feasant (e.g. you trespass on to their land, Google is entitled to seize and detain any property you brought with you until you leave, or (if damage has been caused) until you pay for any damages). There are no other specific defences to this tort, only general defences to a tort (such as limitation, illegality, etc.) In your stated case, assuming you proved the tort on the balance of probabilities, you'd be entitled to damages per Section 3 of the Act.

by fefe23 6y ago

PeterisP 6y ago

Stealing your bike is an inherently illegal action, so the culprit is also liable for losses caused by that. Having a browser you develop show "we don't like this site" is not illegal per se; and by default if something you have the right to do causes a loss to someone else, that's their problem - for example, if I put out a new excellent product for sale at a great price, that causes clear, measurable and provable economic damage to my competitors, possibly even bankrupting them, but that's their problem, not mine, because I did nothing wrong and did not owe them any duty to preserve their profits. There is the concept of "tort" which may apply for such losses, but that generally requires specific intent (which is absent here), negligence (which requires the existence of some obligation or duty of care, which IMHO is absent here, Google has no obligation to show your site correctly in Chrome) or the narrow cases where strict liability applies, which also is absent here - the parent post goes into detail of why in this particular case a tort claim is likely to not succeed.

matthewheath 6y ago

> if, say, Google steals your bike that would be purely economic damage. Surely the UK legal system would still punish that...!? Yes, they would. This is because there is a specific Act of Parliament known as the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 which specifically addresses the tort of "trespass to goods" also known as "wrongful interference with goods". You would need to prove that Google "deliberately" interfered with your bike, on the balance of probabilities. However, Google would have two defences: - Consent (e.g. you trespass on to their land, and they clamp or detain your bike - you are seen as consenting to the consequences of your trespass, namely the clamping, so cannot argue wrongful interference with goods) - Distress damage feasant (e.g. you trespass on to their land, Google is entitled to seize and detain any property you brought with you until you leave, or (if damage has been caused) until you pay for any damages). There are no other specific defences to this tort, only general defences to a tort (such as limitation, illegality, etc.) In your stated case, assuming you proved the tort on the balance of probabilities, you'd be entitled to damages per Section 3 of the Act.