3 ms·

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 eth

by 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?
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Only the trunk from a tree is useful for lumber. The branches have more wood overall, but they are firewood only because they twist so much.
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        >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. Nails aren't a big deal. Everyone is running carbide blades these days and you won't even know you hit nails. Nail content is more of a long term wear problem. What pisses sawmill operators off is gate hardware and/or stupid ornate cast iron plant pot hanger that someone stuck up there 100yr ago. The real problem with getting wood from suburbia isn't the metal it's that the cost of operating everything you need to operate to work efficiently just doesn't pencil out unless you're getting full truck loads of logs. Second, the lumber you'l get is rarely in a good shape. Suburban trees tend to have lots of space to grow and find sun. They're not shooting straight up at the canopy like forest trees are. Demand for ornate slabs is tiny compared to good straight grained lumber. Milling lumber doesn't really pencil out except as a giant industrial operation or small scale cash only side gig.
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.

by cj 2y ago

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?
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Only the trunk from a tree is useful for lumber. The branches have more wood overall, but they are firewood only because they twist so much.
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      >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. Nails aren't a big deal. Everyone is running carbide blades these days and you won't even know you hit nails. Nail content is more of a long term wear problem. What pisses sawmill operators off is gate hardware and/or stupid ornate cast iron plant pot hanger that someone stuck up there 100yr ago. The real problem with getting wood from suburbia isn't the metal it's that the cost of operating everything you need to operate to work efficiently just doesn't pencil out unless you're getting full truck loads of logs. Second, the lumber you'l get is rarely in a good shape. Suburban trees tend to have lots of space to grow and find sun. They're not shooting straight up at the canopy like forest trees are. Demand for ornate slabs is tiny compared to good straight grained lumber. Milling lumber doesn't really pencil out except as a giant industrial operation or small scale cash only side gig.

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.