5 ms·

If I just built a house, and if there were some definitive test to know the wood came from somewhere illegally, who would I sue? In the US, you would sue the p

by cj 2y ago

If I just built a house, and if there were some definitive test to know the wood came from somewhere illegally, who would I sue? In the US, you would sue the person you paid (who would then sue the middleman company who sold them the wood, and so on down the chain until the chain eventually ends). It’s interesting to think what a market would look like if we removed indemnity and limitation of liability from contracts (which allows liability to easily be passed down to vendors) in certain cases. I think that’s how it works in certain other countries. E.g. what if the liability was solely with the person who sold me the wood (even if they’re actually “innocent” and simply bought from a fraudulent distributor). I can easily see how it would help to keep all liability at the closest link to the consumer in the chain, but then again how realistic is it that any home builder is going to (reasonably) be able to do enough vetting of distributors and suppliers to know exactly how and where everything was made.

SoftTalker 2y ago
You likely would not sue anybody, because you have not suffered any loss. Unless you are being fined by the local building department for having such materials in your home, or can demonstrate some kind of loss of resale value, which would probably be difficult. Enforcement of this kind of stuff has to happen much higher in the supply chain, e.g. by criminal prosecution of the importers for breaking the law, not civil claims by homeowners.
- cj 2y ago
  It was more of a thought exercise. But yes, you could sue someone if there is false advertising happening. If I buy wood from someone saying everything is ethically sourced, and it’s not, that’s more than enough for a lawsuit. The “damage” I suffered is that now I need to rebuild my house because it doesn’t use the wood I thought I bought. (Obviously no one would do that in practice, but that’s how these lawsuits work)
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Note that the linked website is about wood used for flooring, so a house would not need to be rebuilt. Only pointing it out because I was wondering how it could possibly be economical for 2x4s used for construction to be imported into the US from Asia when the US and Canada has a robust timber industry. I would also guess new wood flooring installations has long constituted a very small proportion of flooring installation, with the more common material being some kind of plastic/laminate/synthetic or even tile.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      I would guess this stuff is laminate/plywood. That is the typical wood floor these days. Only the top veneer is the hardwood or exotic wood. Actual solid wood plank floors would only be found in high-end custom homes now (though it was common in even middle-class tract/spec homes up until the 1970s or so, when wall-to-wall carpet became popular. For example my parent's suburban bi-level which was an extremely common middle-class house built in the 1960s has solid oak flooring except for the kitchen.)
      - ekidd 2y ago
        Solid oak was still surprisingly cheap as late as 2018. We picked up a bedroom's worth for $300 or so, and it will last as long the house stands. The installation is more expensive than the material. I know of at least one New England house with softwood pine floors from the 1850s that still look gorgeous. They needed a serious sanding about 50 years ago, and they have been revarnished a few times the half century since. Give 'em five good coats of varnish every 20 years, and put rugs on the high-traffic walkways, and they'll last for generations. Meanwhile, linoleum starts looking sketchy after a decade and carpet is just awful.
        Kon-Peki 2y ago
        > The installation is more expensive than the material. That's exactly the problem, isn't it? If any middle class person can afford high-quality wood flooring for their middle-class house, you need something exotic for your mansion. Right? You know what's crazy? I've got stacks of white oak and black walnut firewood. No furniture maker or woodworker will touch a felled tree in suburban or urban areas because it might have a nail somewhere in it. People will cut it into log lengths with a chainsaw and then beg others to come take it - as much as you can fit in your truck. For free. PS - unless I'm missing something, solid oak flooring is still in the same pricing ballpark as engineered wood flooring, often times a bit cheaper. It's the labor cost for installation and then finishing that makes it pricier overall?
  - Marsymars 2y ago
    > If I buy wood from someone saying everything is ethically sourced, and it’s not, that’s more than enough for a lawsuit. I don't expect most contractors to have any wording around ethical sourcing, and I expect they'd balk at me trying to add an ethical sourcing guarantee to our contract.
  - tiahura 2y ago
    Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239, 129 N.E. 889 (1921). In Jacob & Youngs, the homeowner contracted for a house with Reading-brand pipes but received a house with pipes of equal quality from a different manufacturer. The homeowner argued that they had suffered a “damage” because the builder failed to deliver what was specified. However, the court ruled that the cost to completely replace the pipes (tearing down walls, rebuilding, etc.) was disproportionate to the actual harm suffered, as the non-conforming pipes were functionally identical. Instead of awarding the cost of replacement, the court awarded damages based on the difference in value, which was negligible. Applying this principle to your hypothetical: • If you contracted for ethically sourced wood but received non-ethically sourced wood, courts would first examine the actual damage caused by the substitution. • If the wood is of the same quality and functionality, courts might determine that the damages are limited to the difference in value (if any) between the ethically sourced wood and the non-ethically sourced wood, rather than the cost of rebuilding the house. While a lawsuit for false advertising could succeed, the remedy would likely not extend to the drastic measure of requiring a house rebuild unless the difference in the wood’s sourcing directly caused a significant, material harm (e.g., structural failure or a substantial decrease in value). The case emphasizes that remedies for breach of contract or misrepresentation are not always as sweeping as they might seem; they are often tempered by considerations of fairness and proportionality.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  I would assume there'd be an actionable warranty of merchantability attached to the sale. The wood can't be fit for sale if the seller doesn't have a legal claim to the product.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kbelder 2y ago
If you sell your house, would the new owner be able to sue you, then?
- cj 2y ago
  In NYS, you can sue the seller mostly based on what representations/disclosures they made at the time of sale [0] If you disclose it as a material defect, then no they can’t sue you. [0] https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/03/dos-1614-f-property-condition-disclosure-statement_01.2024.pdf https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/03/dos-1614-f...
tadfisher 2y ago
From what I understand through cursory Googling, trading in illegally-harvested timber is a federal crime in the United States [1], and it's a strict liability, meaning everyone in the chain is subject to penalty via law enforcement. I don't know if unknowingly receiving illegal timber without penalty gives you standing to sue. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  I am no expert but I imagine "I hired a licensed contractor to handle this" would provide decent coverage for the home owner? Maybe I'm too naive.
  - munk-a 2y ago
    Often times it isn't as that can be abused by bad actors that attempt to insulate themselves from liability by foisting it off on others. I think in a lot of cases markers of intent may be useful here - if you specifically request a class or species of wood that is restricted in logging you'd likely be held liable - "Oh I had assumed this specific rare tropical wood would be ethically sourced"... while as if you'd just requested a hardwood and contractor happened to source an illegally sourced wood the liability would likely be lessened. In this particular case it's actually particle board so end customers were likely completely unaware it was illegally sourced.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    If I were on a federal jury attempting to convict a home owner that had no direct knowledge of where the raw materials were sourced from, there's no way in hell I'd vote guilty.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    No - strict liability does not require any intent, nor can you escape liability by saying you paid someone to handle it. What provides decent coverage is that nobody is going to charge and convict you. They only charge the cases with intent in practice.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dfxm12 2y ago
What were the damages you sustained? That's probably the key question you must ask yourself. Whoever is responsible for those damages would be the target you should go after.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
Complex questions. Everyone intelligent has their own journey to, “People have agency, and obeying laws is cultural.”
jessetemp 2y ago
> E.g. what if the liability was solely with the person who sold me the wood (even if they’re actually “innocent” and simply bought from a fraudulent distributor). Why would the liability stop with them and not you? If only the last person in the chain is liable, the shouldn’t it be you who is sued by the people whose land was exploited for lumber?
- sailfast 2y ago
  Because you didn't order the illegal Acacia? It's not like elephant ivory - the wood can come from a number of places and look about the same. As an end user you asked for "wood floors" and you got wood floors, and it was up to the supplier to select the wood used in the flooring, while the supplier is also lying about the source so all parties post-supplier have deniability here, no?
  - jaredhallen 2y ago
    How do you know the supplier didn't order "legally harvested" wood? If they did, then why is it more appropriate to hold them liable than the end user?
hammock 2y ago
>If I just built a house, and if there were some definitive test to know the wood came from somewhere illegally, who would I sue? Or: who could sue you, to return the wood?
- efitz 2y ago
  Or, who could bust in your door with a dozen SWAT team members at 5am some morning and drag your family out into the front yard in their pajamas, terrified, making them sit for hours. All because you tried to do the right thing.
efitz 2y ago
IANAL but self-reporting would not likely benefit you; I would try to be as ignorant as possible about the wood type and its source. Knowing and not reporting might also be a crime. Unfortunately much of the US federal bureaucracy is more interested in prosecution than in justice.
kazinator 2y ago
IANAL, but if you want to successfully sue someone, you have to show the court that you have suffered damages because of that someone. If you got the flooring you paid for and it is of the promised quality, you don't have a legitimate complaint. If the authorities were to seize your flooring because it's made of illegal wood, or fine you because of that situation, then you would have damages.
- caseyohara 2y ago
  > If you got the flooring you paid for and it is of the promised quality, you don't have a legitimate complaint. I would think provenance is part of the promised quality.

by cj 2y ago

SoftTalker 2y ago

You likely would not sue anybody, because you have not suffered any loss. Unless you are being fined by the local building department for having such materials in your home, or can demonstrate some kind of loss of resale value, which would probably be difficult. Enforcement of this kind of stuff has to happen much higher in the supply chain, e.g. by criminal prosecution of the importers for breaking the law, not civil claims by homeowners.

cj 2y ago
It was more of a thought exercise. But yes, you could sue someone if there is false advertising happening. If I buy wood from someone saying everything is ethically sourced, and it’s not, that’s more than enough for a lawsuit. The “damage” I suffered is that now I need to rebuild my house because it doesn’t use the wood I thought I bought. (Obviously no one would do that in practice, but that’s how these lawsuits work)
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Note that the linked website is about wood used for flooring, so a house would not need to be rebuilt. Only pointing it out because I was wondering how it could possibly be economical for 2x4s used for construction to be imported into the US from Asia when the US and Canada has a robust timber industry. I would also guess new wood flooring installations has long constituted a very small proportion of flooring installation, with the more common material being some kind of plastic/laminate/synthetic or even tile.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    I would guess this stuff is laminate/plywood. That is the typical wood floor these days. Only the top veneer is the hardwood or exotic wood. Actual solid wood plank floors would only be found in high-end custom homes now (though it was common in even middle-class tract/spec homes up until the 1970s or so, when wall-to-wall carpet became popular. For example my parent's suburban bi-level which was an extremely common middle-class house built in the 1960s has solid oak flooring except for the kitchen.)
    - ekidd 2y ago
      Solid oak was still surprisingly cheap as late as 2018. We picked up a bedroom's worth for $300 or so, and it will last as long the house stands. The installation is more expensive than the material. I know of at least one New England house with softwood pine floors from the 1850s that still look gorgeous. They needed a serious sanding about 50 years ago, and they have been revarnished a few times the half century since. Give 'em five good coats of varnish every 20 years, and put rugs on the high-traffic walkways, and they'll last for generations. Meanwhile, linoleum starts looking sketchy after a decade and carpet is just awful.
      - Kon-Peki 2y ago
        > The installation is more expensive than the material. That's exactly the problem, isn't it? If any middle class person can afford high-quality wood flooring for their middle-class house, you need something exotic for your mansion. Right? You know what's crazy? I've got stacks of white oak and black walnut firewood. No furniture maker or woodworker will touch a felled tree in suburban or urban areas because it might have a nail somewhere in it. People will cut it into log lengths with a chainsaw and then beg others to come take it - as much as you can fit in your truck. For free. PS - unless I'm missing something, solid oak flooring is still in the same pricing ballpark as engineered wood flooring, often times a bit cheaper. It's the labor cost for installation and then finishing that makes it pricier overall?
- Marsymars 2y ago
  > If I buy wood from someone saying everything is ethically sourced, and it’s not, that’s more than enough for a lawsuit. I don't expect most contractors to have any wording around ethical sourcing, and I expect they'd balk at me trying to add an ethical sourcing guarantee to our contract.
- tiahura 2y ago
  Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239, 129 N.E. 889 (1921). In Jacob & Youngs, the homeowner contracted for a house with Reading-brand pipes but received a house with pipes of equal quality from a different manufacturer. The homeowner argued that they had suffered a “damage” because the builder failed to deliver what was specified. However, the court ruled that the cost to completely replace the pipes (tearing down walls, rebuilding, etc.) was disproportionate to the actual harm suffered, as the non-conforming pipes were functionally identical. Instead of awarding the cost of replacement, the court awarded damages based on the difference in value, which was negligible. Applying this principle to your hypothetical: • If you contracted for ethically sourced wood but received non-ethically sourced wood, courts would first examine the actual damage caused by the substitution. • If the wood is of the same quality and functionality, courts might determine that the damages are limited to the difference in value (if any) between the ethically sourced wood and the non-ethically sourced wood, rather than the cost of rebuilding the house. While a lawsuit for false advertising could succeed, the remedy would likely not extend to the drastic measure of requiring a house rebuild unless the difference in the wood’s sourcing directly caused a significant, material harm (e.g., structural failure or a substantial decrease in value). The case emphasizes that remedies for breach of contract or misrepresentation are not always as sweeping as they might seem; they are often tempered by considerations of fairness and proportionality.
AlotOfReading 2y ago
I would assume there'd be an actionable warranty of merchantability attached to the sale. The wood can't be fit for sale if the seller doesn't have a legal claim to the product.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

kbelder 2y ago

If you sell your house, would the new owner be able to sue you, then?

cj 2y ago
In NYS, you can sue the seller mostly based on what representations/disclosures they made at the time of sale [0] If you disclose it as a material defect, then no they can’t sue you. [0] https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/03/dos-1614-f-property-condition-disclosure-statement_01.2024.pdf https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/03/dos-1614-f...

tadfisher 2y ago

From what I understand through cursory Googling, trading in illegally-harvested timber is a federal crime in the United States [1], and it's a strict liability, meaning everyone in the chain is subject to penalty via law enforcement. I don't know if unknowingly receiving illegal timber without penalty gives you standing to sue. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900

Forgeties79 2y ago
I am no expert but I imagine "I hired a licensed contractor to handle this" would provide decent coverage for the home owner? Maybe I'm too naive.
- munk-a 2y ago
  Often times it isn't as that can be abused by bad actors that attempt to insulate themselves from liability by foisting it off on others. I think in a lot of cases markers of intent may be useful here - if you specifically request a class or species of wood that is restricted in logging you'd likely be held liable - "Oh I had assumed this specific rare tropical wood would be ethically sourced"... while as if you'd just requested a hardwood and contractor happened to source an illegally sourced wood the liability would likely be lessened. In this particular case it's actually particle board so end customers were likely completely unaware it was illegally sourced.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  If I were on a federal jury attempting to convict a home owner that had no direct knowledge of where the raw materials were sourced from, there's no way in hell I'd vote guilty.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  No - strict liability does not require any intent, nor can you escape liability by saying you paid someone to handle it. What provides decent coverage is that nobody is going to charge and convict you. They only charge the cases with intent in practice.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dfxm12 2y ago

What were the damages you sustained? That's probably the key question you must ask yourself. Whoever is responsible for those damages would be the target you should go after.

doctorpangloss 2y ago

Complex questions. Everyone intelligent has their own journey to, “People have agency, and obeying laws is cultural.”

jessetemp 2y ago

> E.g. what if the liability was solely with the person who sold me the wood (even if they’re actually “innocent” and simply bought from a fraudulent distributor). Why would the liability stop with them and not you? If only the last person in the chain is liable, the shouldn’t it be you who is sued by the people whose land was exploited for lumber?

sailfast 2y ago
Because you didn't order the illegal Acacia? It's not like elephant ivory - the wood can come from a number of places and look about the same. As an end user you asked for "wood floors" and you got wood floors, and it was up to the supplier to select the wood used in the flooring, while the supplier is also lying about the source so all parties post-supplier have deniability here, no?
- jaredhallen 2y ago
  How do you know the supplier didn't order "legally harvested" wood? If they did, then why is it more appropriate to hold them liable than the end user?

hammock 2y ago

>If I just built a house, and if there were some definitive test to know the wood came from somewhere illegally, who would I sue? Or: who could sue you, to return the wood?

efitz 2y ago
Or, who could bust in your door with a dozen SWAT team members at 5am some morning and drag your family out into the front yard in their pajamas, terrified, making them sit for hours. All because you tried to do the right thing.

efitz 2y ago

IANAL but self-reporting would not likely benefit you; I would try to be as ignorant as possible about the wood type and its source. Knowing and not reporting might also be a crime. Unfortunately much of the US federal bureaucracy is more interested in prosecution than in justice.

kazinator 2y ago

IANAL, but if you want to successfully sue someone, you have to show the court that you have suffered damages because of that someone. If you got the flooring you paid for and it is of the promised quality, you don't have a legitimate complaint. If the authorities were to seize your flooring because it's made of illegal wood, or fine you because of that situation, then you would have damages.

caseyohara 2y ago
> If you got the flooring you paid for and it is of the promised quality, you don't have a legitimate complaint. I would think provenance is part of the promised quality.