On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:12:36 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 16, 4:01 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 16, 1:53=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I would agree...the problem seems to be the lack of retrieving damages
from the manufacturers and importers of the bad sheetrock.
Nonsense. The homeowners need to go after the *builders* who used low-quality
materials.
So, if your brand new car burst into flame you'd sue the dealer?
Of course not. I'd sue the manufacturer of the car. Just like the owners of
the homes with Chinese drywall need to do: sue the manufacturer of the home.

Replying to nonsense with nonsense doesn't make sense.
Your analogy is, to put it charitably, severely flawed.

Hint #1: Who is the manufacturer of a house?
Hint #2: It's not the company that made the drywall, or the forester that
grew the trees that the framing was milled from.

Your understanding of how the legal system works is severely flawed,
which is why you didn't understand my analogy.

Rule one is to go after the guys with the deepest pockets. The
builder isn't it.

R

The builder probably just ordered 1/2" (or whatever) drywall from a
supply house, who provided them with the Chinese stuff. You'd have to
go farther up the supply chain to find out who was really negligent.

Now if a builder *knew* that Chinese drywall was dangerous/defective
when he took delivery of it, you might be able to prove something there.
But proving that would be difficult, even if it were true.

nate


It may be that no one was negligent, at least not initially. It's
possible that everyone involved, from the maker of the drywall on down
didn't realize there was any problem with the raw materials being
used. It's always possible, in hindsight, to say someone "should have
known".