fuck this guy

  • ShellMonkey@piefed.socdojo.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 days ago

    Yeah, I suppose I’m going with the actual losses being an assumed cost too. I guess a simple way might be steal $1B, make $1M off it before being brought to court, pay back the $1B and $750K punitive amount, walk off with $250K profit.

    Unless they allow someone to collect for potential gains missed due to the theft and provide a suitable deterrent in punitive amounts it basically comes down to paying back the raw losses and up to $750K

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 days ago

      I guess a simple way might be steal $1B, make $1M off it

      The courts generally recognize the time-value of money. If you steal $1 and make $.10 on it, then you’ve deprived the person you stole from of the same ROI. In fact, you’ve demonstrated the deprived returns by investing it.

      Unless they allow someone to collect for potential gains

      So, back to the car example. If you deprive someone of a car and that costs them their job, you’re liable for the wages they lost when they lost their job.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      This is a great example where th punitive damages are the inportant part. I’m sure they argued there were no direct monetary damage and how do upsi quantify such a thing anyway.

      The analogy is what if someone vandalized your car and came back every night to keep vandalizing it, and accosted you as a liar in public, and attacked your employer to get you fired, and told everyone they could that you were the problem? Now imagine it wasn’t a car but your child that you lost