3 ms·
I don't see how this is relevant to HN. It's simple: sue. For considerably more than $18k, to cover the cost of not having anything for the extended period of t
by rlpb 13y ago
I don't see how this is relevant to HN. It's simple: sue. For considerably more than $18k, to cover the cost of not having anything for the extended period of time during which the bank did not remedy the situation. If the stated facts are true, then the bank (more specifically: the legal entity that removed her possessions) doesn't have a leg to stand on.
It is not criminal, because a crime requires _mens rea_, or criminal intent. There was none here. But there is clear civil liability due to the law of torts.
- ihsw 13y agoYou would be correct: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. Source :http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html