"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
erver.com...

"Secret Squirrel" wrote in message
. 97.131...

Well, the point that many are making is that that is difficult or
impossible depending on where you live. Due to the predatory business
practices of many retailers, HD is certainly not the only one,
selection, choice and competetion are reduced to the minimum or
eliminated entirely in many markets.

With some very limited exceptions - which are not even exceptions since
the
areas in question simply never had anything in the first place - this
statement is just flatly not true. It's a common bitch point that
people
like to throw around but it is wholy unsubstantiated and flies squarely
in
the face of the business practices and preferences of the competitors of
retailers like HD.

"Flatly not true"

The lighting store I used to frequent up the street went out of biz when
the
borg came to town. Along with three lumber yards, a plumbing supply store
and a an electrical supply store. All of them offering much better
service,
selection, product knowledge and comparable prices.

It ain't bitchin' if it is true.


Lee, I'd bet good money that these stores did not cater to the same
clientele that the BORGs do, and that the only reason people bought there
before the BORGs came around was because there was no alternative. With all
that you describe them offering, it is just not the case that businesses
like that fold up when the big box stores come to town. You are describing
a situation that has been borne out by cities and towns across America
without like experience. Like I posted in another post, ACE Hardware itself
says the best thing that can happen to one of their stores is for a Wal-Mart
or HD to plop down right across the street. This is proven by sales volume.
Those stores that truly offer better service, better selection, better
product knowledge and comparable prices simply do not go out of business
because a big box store comes to town. With all of that supposedly on their
side, just why would anyone go to the big box stores?
--

-Mike-

Brian Elfert wrote:

....
Credit bureaus don't just lower credit scores for the heck of it. The
credit bureau's customers (banks and finance companies) want to loan out
money so they make money. Banks don't want to turn down perfectly good
customers because the credit bureau screwed up.


Well, personally I think the major problem isn't w/ the bureaus so much
as the credit card companys that use the credit reports to manipulate
their rates in favorable (to them) manners. While it is true that there
may be increased risk, most of these increases are far beyond what would
be required and are simply usurious. The key to observing this is to
see the number of unsolicited cards particularly to those w/ poor credit
history.

While I'll agree it is the ultimate responsibility of the person
accepting credit to ensure they're not ripped off, many of the card
companies are highly culpable in enticement and entrapment, imo, preying
on uneducated and disadvantaged and elderly. I'd be for much stronger
usury rules, personally.

"Never Enough Money" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wow. All these responses spewing venim toward Home Depot and other
companies. The venim should be reserved for the thief that stole the
identity! Everybody wants payment for their losses and they want the
deepest pockets around to pay.

To a point, I agree with your observation about the mentality towards big
companies here. Sometimes this place looks like most of the folks are an
angry lot who simply resent anything and anyone more successful than them.



Secondly, some lage companies have databases. Others do not. So shall
we get mad at those that do have databases and don't use them as we
think fit and be kind to those that don't?

All large companies today have "databases", though that is not really a
meaningful term. More properly, they all have some amount of deep knowldege
about their customer base.


In some cases, not necessarily the one
discussed in this thread, the individual who lost his identity should
get a kick in the butt because he/she was so stupid for being careless
with his/her identity.


These days your identity is so widely distributed that you no longer have
any control at all over it. You can be as diligent as possible to protect
your personal information and it won't matter one hoot. Everything there is
to know about you is available and for sale. Your health records, your
financial records, your internet habits, you name it. The safeguards that
surround information as sensitive as this are almost non-existent. They're
in place to protect against honest people, but there really is not much in
place to protect against the clever mind of the criminal, as evidenced by
the recent news.

--

-Mike-

I pulled a copy of the Appellate court's opinion and read it, and the
fact is I think we all have to understand that consumer credit is
handed out blithely by retail big box outfits like HD, which
subcontract the credit extension and approval process to folks like GE
Capital (as in this case) to manage the credit process. HD outsourced
and promptly forgot about the process, and forwarded everything over to
GE to handle, 'cept in this case the lawsuit fell into some fine print
in the GE contract which likely said "this is your issue, HD." So it
got lost in the shuffle, little guy gets a judgment, and the "cost" is
not really one of lawsuit defense, but one of "outsourcing" to people
who don't give a sh*t about the HD customer, e.g., GE Capital (who IMHO
are some of the slickest characters out there and cut really sharp,
perhaps too sharp, business deals). If its not in the contract, GE
doesn't do it and doesn't tell you they aren't doing it. So the long
and the short of it is that the guy at HD who outsourced this function
then "forgot" about it ("Hey, GE will take care of it, not to worry")
is the guy who should be fired, and yes, they are lucky this was not
filed as a class action. Its a bigger problem of granting credit too
freely, and not paying attention to your business once its outsourced,
and HD is paying the price for poor management, simple as that.

Mutt

On 21 Feb 2005 10:35:31 -0800, wrote:


Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


It stated he had to pay a higher interest rate on his mortgage. He
obviously has a hassle with the paperwork and repeated call to HD.
That
does not add up to a million bucks, IMO.

Non Sequitor. To be effective, punitive dmages must be high enough
to disabuse the malefactor from a repetition of the tort. Otherwise
it may be cheaper to absord the suits as a cost of doing business and
continue to ruin the credit ratings of numerous other persons many
of whom will never find out why.

Punitive damages are one of the most ridiculous things in our legal
system. They are intended to function as a fine, forcing a change in
behavior, but they have become nothing more than another enriching
option for the lawyers. I would suggest that punitive damages be
treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Mutt" wrote in message
ups.com...
I pulled a copy of the Appellate court's opinion and read it, and the
fact is I think we all have to understand that consumer credit is
handed out blithely by retail big box outfits like HD, which
subcontract the credit extension and approval process to folks like GE
Capital (as in this case) to manage the credit process. HD outsourced
and promptly forgot about the process, and forwarded everything over to
GE to handle, 'cept in this case the lawsuit fell into some fine print
in the GE contract which likely said "this is your issue, HD." So it
got lost in the shuffle, little guy gets a judgment, and the "cost" is
not really one of lawsuit defense, but one of "outsourcing" to people
who don't give a sh*t about the HD customer, e.g., GE Capital (who IMHO
are some of the slickest characters out there and cut really sharp,
perhaps too sharp, business deals). If its not in the contract, GE
doesn't do it and doesn't tell you they aren't doing it. So the long
and the short of it is that the guy at HD who outsourced this function
then "forgot" about it ("Hey, GE will take care of it, not to worry")
is the guy who should be fired, and yes, they are lucky this was not
filed as a class action. Its a bigger problem of granting credit too
freely, and not paying attention to your business once its outsourced,
and HD is paying the price for poor management, simple as that.


And because of an expensive settlement and PUBLIC EMBARASSMENT, maybe they
will get off their lazy asses and do something to correct problems like
this.

They certainly have no incentive to do so otherwise.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Scrub" wrote in message
...
On 21 Feb 2005 10:35:31 -0800, wrote:


Non Sequitor. To be effective, punitive dmages must be high enough
to disabuse the malefactor from a repetition of the tort.

What he said.....so eloquently.

But punishing a corporation does not necessarily have to be a big
windfall
for the person that was hurt. Sure, he should be well compensated.

You'd think so. I used to. Assuming as I do that jealousy is NOT
your motivation to object, the obvious objection is that the
possibility
of large punitives may encourage more suits than are 'necessary'.

The obvious solution is to not grant large punitives when they are
not necessary and indeed, juries and judges tend not to grant
grant large punitives unless the plaintiff shows that the defendant
has been ignoring previous smaller judgements. Some lawyers call
this the 'every dog gets one bite' principle.

The cases you hear about in the news that sound absurd usually
sound that way because they are being misreported, or if they
really are absued, because they are exceptional, not what ord-
inarily happens.

Want to
hurt a big store like HD? Make them close on a Sunday and lose
sales to
the competition. Make them take full page ads in magazines telling
what
they did wrong. Let the world know, not just a few people and the
lawyers
get rich.

The problem with alternatives to punitives other than monetary awards
to the plaintiff is that they inevitable benifit others who

1) typically have done nothing at all to earn the benefit, at least
the plaintiff did the work necessary to obtain the judgement.
In the instant case this would be HD's competitors.

and

2) by realizing a benefit now have a motive to encourage or facilitate
such suits. This is potentially a problem if the beneficiary of the
punitives is, for example, the government. As you will recall there
was a time when property was confiscated from convicted witches.
That property went the king. Since the king was just we may be
assured that only persons who really were witches were convicted,
right?

Finally, a settlement may entail the defendant being ordered to do
something, in addition to just paying the plaintiff. This is
particularly in the settlement of the much maligned class-action
lawsuits.

--

FF

I don't want to get into a ****ing contest here about who said what...But
please see my comments made in reply.

--
"A.M. Wood" wrote in message
ups.com...

John Flatley wrote:
--
"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...

Home Depot isn't called the BORG for nothing. One big reason for
the
hostility towards Home Depot is that when they show up, many other
superior
businesses go under. Go elsewhere?? What planet do you live on?
With
Home
Depot and Lowes around, there is almost no place else to go.

Folks are getting what they want. There are enough customers who
spend
money to keep the 'BORGs' in business. Maybe you and me and some
others are
not in that customer group. How many times have you seen posters in
the
newsgroup asking where is the cheapest place to buy or the lowest
price for
a DeWaukee Sandrill LathSaw?

There is a very strong market for low price. I'm sure you found this
in
your business research. Home Depot and Lowe's (Wal-Mart, Target,
etc.) are
competing mainly on low price and location. They are serving their
market
segment. I wish they would/could serve a market segment that I am
in.

Go elsewhere? I do. For general hardware I go to Ace. If I'm
painting, I
shop Sherwin Williams or Benjamin Moore. For Kitchen cabinets I went
to a
cabinet shop. For kitchen appliances, we went to a kitchen appliance
dealer. When we re-did our kitchen floor, we went to a tile outlet.
I used
to drive 120 miles to go to a Woodcraft. Now we have one in town and
it's
just 15 miles away. I also buy from Lee Valley, Amazon (Tool Crib of
The
North), Rockler, Highland Hardware and others by mail or Internet.
There
are choices. My wife and I are retired and we have to watch every
penny.
With a fixed income, I can't afford to buy cheap stuff. I learned a
long
time ago the cheapest or most expensive is seldom the best buy.


The plaintiff did shop elsewhere. Someone else was using his SS at the
BORG.


My shopping elsewhere comment is a response to a post by Lee Michaels.
It was NOT a comment on the original poster!



Maybe my point should be: Don't expect the 'BORGs' to be something
they are
not. We should understand who and what they are and use their
service as we
want.

The BORG was making the credit inquiries. They should be responsible
for their own actions.


I understand your point. Home Depot's credit inquiries were a routine
business
activity.




The original poster that started this thread was pleased that Home
Depot was
being penalized. I believe the plantiff in the case shoould have
gone after
the thief for stealing his identity or gone after the credit bureau
that
counts an inquiry as a debt for credit worthiness assessments.



The plaintiff did try that route. The BORG however would not provide
him with the details of the credit inquiries they were making.


Again, I ask you re-read a previous post of mine. I made the point that the
LA Times
newspaper article fails to identify who at Home Depot (Borg) the plaintiff
talked to.
Neither is there any mention of a Better Business Bureau contact or
involvement. Nor
is there record of any police department involvement at any location. My
position is/was
Home Depot may have been a factor in the problem. They may have been the
whole
problem. However, with the lack of information in the Times article, there
is not sufficient information for a reasonable person to state the Borg
screwed up. (The track record of jury awards in this country does not
impress me.) Folks are very quick to verbally tar and feather the Borg. I
apologize if my response to Mr. Michaels led you to believe I was responding
to the original poster




I mentioned to my wife; "I don't expect very much from Home Depot, so
I'm
seldom disappointed."


Well, I bet you would be very disappointed if the BORG started issuing
credit to other people under your SS number.


Jack

(In the interest of a fair and accurate opinion I must add that my
wife
prefers the paint and color selection at Lowe's. Since she does most
of the
interior painting, it is her call. Sorry Sherwin. Sorry Benjamin.)

Tim Douglass wrote:

... I would suggest that punitive damages be
treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.

I used to think that too. Then it was pointed out to me that if
the government is deriving revenue from punitives the government
has a strong financial motive to make it easier to obtain punitives.

Also, injunctive relief, IS pretty common, especially in class-action
lawsuits.

--

FF

wrote

2) by realizing a benefit now have a motive to encourage or facilitate
such suits. This is potentially a problem if the beneficiary of the
punitives is, for example, the government. As you will recall there
was a time when property was confiscated from convicted witches.
That property went the king. Since the king was just we may be
assured that only persons who really were witches were convicted,
right?

Now THAT is an idea!!

Do you think we could pursue witchcraft charges against Home Depot? ;-)

wrote in

Tim Douglass wrote:

... I would suggest that punitive damages be
treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.

I used to think that too. Then it was pointed out to me that if
the government is deriving revenue from punitives the government
has a strong financial motive to make it easier to obtain punitives.

Just look at all the "civil forfeitures" that are taking place with many
police departments in the so called "drug war".

Lee Michaels wrote:
wrote in

I used to think that too. Then it was pointed out to me that if
the government is deriving revenue from punitives the government
has a strong financial motive to make it easier to obtain
punitives.

Just look at all the "civil forfeitures" that are taking place with
many
police departments in the so called "drug war".

In some cases criminal charges are dropped in exchange for an
agreement to not contest the forfeiture. The distinction between
this and granting a license to break the law is somewhat difficult
to articulate.

--

FF

Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

Quite frankly, I don't think the companies really do care. They have
fraud and theft factored into their rates and costs. So 1 out of 100
credit or service applications prove to be fraud... to them it's just
a
write-off on the balance sheet. To the citizen affected, it's a
source
of anxiety and stress, costing much time and effort to get their name

cleared. Whether or not Cingular is responsible in anyway, they
certainly have no warm spot in our hearts. If they had headed this
off
in the second instance I'd not have such animosity towards the
company.

I disagree about it being "just a write-off to the balance sheet." The
money lost is a real cash outflow. While they expect losses, the fewer
they have, the better off they are. More cash and more profits. Plus,
in a competitive environment they can either reduce fees and attract
more customers and make even more profits or keep fees in line with
their competitors (who experience higher loss rates) and make even more
profits. Either way, there is an incentive for companies that grant
credit to consumers to reduce losses.

The problem is that the losses are the result of companies such as home
depot who somehow seem to be able to offer credit but don't have to pay
the price of their own carelessness.

In article .com,
"Never Enough Money" wrote:

Wow. All these responses spewing venim toward Home Depot and other
companies. The venim should be reserved for the thief that stole the
identity! Everybody wants payment for their losses and they want the
deepest pockets around to pay.

Believe me I have much venom for the ID thieves. But why don't you tell
me who they are and where to find them. They use your name and SS# to
open an account and provide a bogus billing address. The closest you
might come to finding them is the state in which they live. Those cell
phone stands are in every mall in the country. Just apply and 5 minutes
after running *your* name and SS# through a clearing house, the thief
walks away with a new phone and service.

Secondly, some lage companies have databases. Others do not. So shall
we get mad at those that do have databases and don't use them as we
think fit and be kind to those that don't?

If they cared about theft then they'd put in the software and personel
to protect their profits. (I believe they already have extensive
capabilities, they just have so many "reps" selling their products that
they accept the theft as a fact of doing business.)

I detest this railing against "big companies." I recall a time before
Home Depot. Home Depot has made life better, not worse.

I couldn't care less if any of the big box stores existed. I rarely go
to any of them and frankly can find the same or better products and
service elsewhere.

Granted, the companies could do a better job and will in the
future....when the software engineers are paid to write the checks into
the databaes and the companines can afford the "new features." However
to sue the pants off the companies in the hopes of beign a catylsy for
such changes is just wrong. In some cases, not necessarily the one
discussed in this thread, the individual who lost his identity should
get a kick in the butt because he/she was so stupid for being careless
with his/her identity.

Did you attend public school? College? Ever go to a doctor or dentist?
Do you carry health insurance? Ever applied for utility service? Got a
driver's license? Do you have a credit report?

If you answered yes to any single question above then you are at risk
for ID theft. All it takes is for one dishonest employee at any of these
record holders to sell your info to those just waiting in the wings. You
know those college students working in the registrar's office... do you
think it could be possible one of them might need a little crack money?
You have zero control of the info out there. All you can do is regularly
pull credit reports to try to stop anything before it gets too far along.

Oh, yes, you heard about the company last week that mistakenly put out
thousands upon thousands of inividuals' information for all to see?
Maybe your's is one of them... if that's the case I expect you to bend
over to receive your kick in the butt.

--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
...


Punitive damages are one of the most ridiculous things in our legal
system. They are intended to function as a fine, forcing a change in
behavior, but they have become nothing more than another enriching
option for the lawyers. I would suggest that punitive damages be
treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.


Your proposal Tim, leaves out the valid restitution to the victim. No way I
would consider that fair and equitable.
--

-Mike-

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:47:50 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
.. .


Punitive damages are one of the most ridiculous things in our legal
system. They are intended to function as a fine, forcing a change in
behavior, but they have become nothing more than another enriching
option for the lawyers. I would suggest that punitive damages be
treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.


Your proposal Tim, leaves out the valid restitution to the victim. No way I
would consider that fair and equitable.

Restitution for loss is always valid and obviously should remain
unchanged. The subject of my comments was punitive damages, which are
unrelated to any real loss but are directly tied to the amount of cash
the defendant has.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On 22 Feb 2005 12:56:42 -0800, wrote:


Tim Douglass wrote:

... I would suggest that punitive damages be
treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.

I used to think that too. Then it was pointed out to me that if
the government is deriving revenue from punitives the government
has a strong financial motive to make it easier to obtain punitives.

Which differers in no major way from the situation now where lawyers
benefit from the results of laws that are made by elected
representative who are mostly lawyers.

The point has some merit, but since the cost of arguing for a punitive
award would be borne by the plaintiff, but they wouldn't see any
direct benefit from it, I suspect the effect would be a net positive.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:47:50 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
.. .


Punitive damages are one of the most ridiculous things in our legal
system. They are intended to function as a fine, forcing a change in
behavior, but they have become nothing more than another enriching
option for the lawyers. I would suggest that punitive damages be
treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.


Your proposal Tim, leaves out the valid restitution to the victim. No
way I
would consider that fair and equitable.

Restitution for loss is always valid and obviously should remain
unchanged. The subject of my comments was punitive damages, which are
unrelated to any real loss but are directly tied to the amount of cash
the defendant has.


I understand. but in cases such as we're speaking of here there is little or
no tangible loss, yet there is indeed significant loss. What we know of as
punitive damages are the only way to compensate for those losses. I agree
that punitive loss seems to be tied to the depth of the offender's pockets,
and to some degree that may even be appropriate since it could be argued
that a certain amount of that success was likely the result of years of the
same behavior that wound them up in court. I guess as I plow through this,
I find that I am a believer in punitive judgments. Not as out of hand as
they have gotten over the years, but certain as a matter of course. Then
again, we hear about the outrageous awards that juries issue, but we don't
hear as much about the reduced awards that the judges pass down.
--

-Mike-

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:50:57 -0500, "John Flatley"
wrote:

(The track record of jury awards in this country does not
impress me.)

What *is* the "track record" of jury awards in this country ???

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:34:12 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

I understand. but in cases such as we're speaking of here there is little or
no tangible loss, yet there is indeed significant loss. What we know of as
punitive damages are the only way to compensate for those losses. I agree
that punitive loss seems to be tied to the depth of the offender's pockets,
and to some degree that may even be appropriate since it could be argued
that a certain amount of that success was likely the result of years of the
same behavior that wound them up in court. I guess as I plow through this,
I find that I am a believer in punitive judgments. Not as out of hand as
they have gotten over the years, but certain as a matter of course. Then
again, we hear about the outrageous awards that juries issue, but we don't
hear as much about the reduced awards that the judges pass down.

Those are covered under what are called "non-tangible losses" or
sometimes "pain and suffering". Punitive damages are the third type of
award (Real loss, non-tangible loss, punitive damages). Non-tangible
losses include compensation for loss of companionship, damage to
reputation, mental stress, etc. Punitive losses have *nothing* to do
with the plaintiff. They exist as *punishment* for wrongdoing (and in
some circles are seen as an illegal exercise of the right of the state
to punish wrongdoers).

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Tim Douglass wrote:
On 22 Feb 2005 12:56:42 -0800, wrote:




I used to think that too. Then it was pointed out to me that if
the government is deriving revenue from punitives the government
has a strong financial motive to make it easier to obtain punitives.

Which differers in no major way from the situation now where lawyers
benefit from the results of laws that are made by elected
representative who are mostly lawyers.


Oh come on now. It is the government that defines torts,
sets standards of evidence, establishes statutory damages
and so on. That is a heaping big difference from the attorneys
who may merely lobby for such things. Perhaps you missed the
witch example?

The point has some merit, but since the cost of arguing for a
punitive
award would be borne by the plaintiff, but they wouldn't see any
direct benefit from it, I suspect the effect would be a net positive.


How would it be a net positive to reduce suits for punitive damages?

Consider a suit for a low=balled insurance claim. Wyy would anyone
sue for punitives they won't get, and therefor why would any insurance
claim NOT lowball the claims and settle out-of court for a fair
amount ONLY with those who sue?

--

FF

Of course we should sue the life out of GE capital so that HD will have
to use an Indian or Chinese company who will care even less about the
consumer.

I disagree that HD is paying the price for poor management. They are
paying (mostly) punitive damages because they have deep pockets. There
is nothing wrong with outsourcing. I outsource my lawn mowing, my car
repairs, my garbage pickup.

I hope HD's response os to stop taking credit altogether! To just say
screw it! But, of course, there's too much money involved and I ain't
King.

The reason GE cuts really sharp deals is that there are too many folks
out there itching to sue somebody and essentially "win lotto." Too many
jurors that are pre-disposed to hate the "big multi-national". Too many
judges that think they need to punish the evil capitalistic pigs. And
so it becomes a componet of why our companies are outsourcing to Indian
and China.

HD lucky it was filed as a class action. No the public is lucky --
that's who ultimately pays the bill.


Mutt wrote:
I pulled a copy of the Appellate court's opinion and read it, and the
fact is I think we all have to understand that consumer credit is
handed out blithely by retail big box outfits like HD, which
subcontract the credit extension and approval process to folks like
GE
Capital (as in this case) to manage the credit process. HD
outsourced
and promptly forgot about the process, and forwarded everything over
to
GE to handle, 'cept in this case the lawsuit fell into some fine
print
in the GE contract which likely said "this is your issue, HD." So it
got lost in the shuffle, little guy gets a judgment, and the "cost"
is
not really one of lawsuit defense, but one of "outsourcing" to people
who don't give a sh*t about the HD customer, e.g., GE Capital (who
IMHO
are some of the slickest characters out there and cut really sharp,
perhaps too sharp, business deals). If its not in the contract, GE
doesn't do it and doesn't tell you they aren't doing it. So the long
and the short of it is that the guy at HD who outsourced this
function
then "forgot" about it ("Hey, GE will take care of it, not to worry")
is the guy who should be fired, and yes, they are lucky this was not
filed as a class action. Its a bigger problem of granting credit too
freely, and not paying attention to your business once its
outsourced,
and HD is paying the price for poor management, simple as that.

Mutt

On 22 Feb 2005 16:32:26 -0800, wrote:


Tim Douglass wrote:
On 22 Feb 2005 12:56:42 -0800, wrote:




I used to think that too. Then it was pointed out to me that if
the government is deriving revenue from punitives the government
has a strong financial motive to make it easier to obtain punitives.

Which differers in no major way from the situation now where lawyers
benefit from the results of laws that are made by elected
representative who are mostly lawyers.


Oh come on now. It is the government that defines torts,
sets standards of evidence, establishes statutory damages
and so on. That is a heaping big difference from the attorneys
who may merely lobby for such things. Perhaps you missed the
witch example?

Something like 75% of our elected officials - the ones who make the
laws - are lawyers by education and/or trade.

The point has some merit, but since the cost of arguing for a
punitive
award would be borne by the plaintiff, but they wouldn't see any
direct benefit from it, I suspect the effect would be a net positive.


How would it be a net positive to reduce suits for punitive damages?

Consider a suit for a low=balled insurance claim. Wyy would anyone
sue for punitives they won't get, and therefor why would any insurance
claim NOT lowball the claims and settle out-of court for a fair
amount ONLY with those who sue?

Sometimes people do things for justice. And I wouldn't mind them being
allowed to collect a reasonable fee for their time, but this business
where the lawyer gets 60% of an award, then the client gets their 40%,
but all the expenses come out of theirs, is not the way to do it. I'm
not saying that there isn't a place for punitive awards, but I don't
believe that they should go to benefit someone just because they are
the one who filed the suit.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

You can outsource, but have to supervise what is being done in your
name. If the garbage company spilled your garbage in the street and it
blew on neighbor's property, you'd more than likely pick it up and then
call the garbage company to complain. If the lawn service insisted on
cutting the lawn while your children or grandchildren were playing
kickball on the lawn, you'd likely get the kids off the lawn or tell
the mower guy to cut it later. That's my point. You can't avoid
liability by simply outsourcing.

By the way, I wonder how you, me, or for that matter, anyone else would
feel about having your credit trashed by repetitive credit checks
fraudulently submitted over and over after you brought the situation to
the credit card company and they refused to even consider what they
might do to make it right. This guy was not trying to win the "lotto"
- he just wanted to clear his good name after having done absolutely
nothing wrong. I don't see anything sinister, greedy or litigious
about that. HD simply ignored the guy's calls, ignored his lawsuit,
ignored the judgment and in the end has to sleep in the bed they made
for themselves.

Everybody blames those who simply enforce the law, which has been
around for a long time and at it's base is designed to protect people
from the wrongs of others. The problem is not judges, juries or
litigants, its just that nowadays corporate america too often wants to
ignore owning up to their responsibilities when their actions directly
affect someone else. Then they hire corporate spin doctors to make
themselves out to be the victims. Reminds me of this totally obscene
medical malpractice insurance debate, which has nothing to do with jury
verdicts and a whole lot more to do with the insurance companies's
mismanagement of their investment portfolios, and if the yield isn't
there to generate profits then they raise the premiums. So, we limit
recovery for med-mal plaintiffs - tell that to the brain damaged guy
with 4 kids who went in for elective surgery and the anethesia went
bad. Oh, gee, I forgot, his family can go on welfare! But that's
another debate and entirely symptomatic of the weak minded (or on the
take) politicians who happen to be in control of the country right now.

spleen now fully vented - time to return to making my cherry chairside
chest

Mutt

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:32:43 -0500, "John Flatley"
wrote:

Let's sock it to the big nasty corporation, they have deep pockets!

Let's suck up to the big nasty corporation, they have....

Don't
blame or sue any individuals just because they are at fault, ...

... especially when the big nasty corporation refuses to do
anything to help you *identify* the individual responsible (you
*did* see that in the HD article, didn't you ? Or were the pages
so drenched with your tears for poor HD that the lines were
washed out ? :-)

they don't have
enough money. Sue the big box. Just remember, if the big box loses, the
judgement will become a business expense.

A business expense! Selling prices = expenses + profits. When expenses go
up, prices go up. (prices will go up to maintain profits/stock value) Who
pays for higher prices. Bingo! The consumer.

So the decision is yours: support HD's actions by paying the
higher prices resulting from its behaviors, or shop somewhere
else.

(Where does the myth that HD's prices are lower come from ?
It's advertising ?)

All the customers at Home
Depot pay the price. The offended customer gets relief and the plaintiff's
lawyers build another seven-figure income.


A few "build another seven-figure income." Most don't. The
majority of the lawyers that I know make a small fraction of
that.

And when the legal dust and smoke clears, what happens to the Home Depot
employees at fault? Those that didn't do anything to resolve the
plaintiff's credit problem?


You should ask HD that. If it took no action, you can assume that
there will be another suit like this one in the not-too-distant
future. And wouldn't that be the correct outcome ? Or do you feel
that HD is not responsible for what its employees do on the job?

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:13:05 -0500, "John Flatley"
wrote:


The article does not contain a single word criticizing the credit bureaus
that award credit scores on the number of inquirers rather than on a
person's financial obligations. Why hasn't someone taken them to court?


One reason is that the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" makes it
impossible to obtain redress against a credit bureau unless
you can prove it intentionally & maliciously tried to damage
you.

In article , GregP wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:13:05 -0500, "John Flatley"
wrote:

The article does not contain a single word criticizing the credit bureaus
that award credit scores on the number of inquirers rather than on a
person's financial obligations. Why hasn't someone taken them to court?

One reason is that the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" makes it
impossible to obtain redress against a credit bureau unless
you can prove it intentionally & maliciously tried to damage
you.

This is not correct.

The FCRA provides for penalties in the case of "willful noncompliance"
(Section 616) and "negligent noncompliance" (Section 617)

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#616
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#617

and sets those sections out as _specific_exceptions_ to the "malice or willful
intent" provision of Section 610(e):

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#610

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Mutt" wrote:

Everybody blames those who simply enforce the law, which has been
around for a long time and at it's base is designed to protect people
from the wrongs of others. The problem is not judges, juries or
litigants, its just that nowadays corporate america too often wants to
ignore owning up to their responsibilities when their actions directly
affect someone else. Then they hire corporate spin doctors to make
themselves out to be the victims.

They are in business to make money you know. That's the system. If you
want the objective of the corporation to be "nicey-nice" change the
rules.

Your complaint reminds of those who object when, after his conviction
or arrest, the criminal didn't show any remorse. Why should this shock
anyone? In fact any remorse is just acting, only convincing to the
gullible.

Reminds me of this totally obscene
medical malpractice insurance debate, which has nothing to do with jury
verdicts and a whole lot more to do with the insurance companies's
mismanagement of their investment portfolios, and if the yield isn't
there to generate profits then they raise the premiums.

There's something wrong with this (even if it were factually correct
which I doubt)? Again, if you want nicey-nice change the system. The
old Soviet Union was a good model.

So, we limit
recovery for med-mal plaintiffs - tell that to the brain damaged guy
with 4 kids who went in for elective surgery and the anethesia went
bad. Oh, gee, I forgot, his family can go on welfare! But that's
another debate and entirely symptomatic of the weak minded (or on the
take) politicians who happen to be in control of the country right now.

Er, let's strip out some of the emotion here. None of the
proposed-Federal or current-state limits on malpractice awards curtail
payment for medical expenses or loss-of-wages etc.; they only affect
the nebulous "pain and suffering" a number generally derived by the
time-honored "square your grandmothers age a death, multiply by the
number of tiles on the jury room floor, add $100K if the plaintiff
drools, multiply by two if you don't like the defendant attorney's
suit" rule.

Like punitive damages lots of these awards are purely based on
emotional criteria providing a bonanza for the sympathetic and in no
way approximating any sort of objective compensation for the injury
caused. Thus the huge swings in awards for seemingly similar
conditions.

If all of the above makes you think that I'm anti the little guy or
anti punishing the corporations and others for their wrongs you have
the wrong impression. I just think that the tort system is an
inefficient, exceedingly expensive, antiquated, incompetent...
generally the wrong way to do it. For what it did in the environment
when it was set up (or evolved) the tort system was fine; today we
have an extraordinarily complex society in which various segments have
developed means of avoiding the consequences of their actions or
inactions (e.g. insurance), others perform extraordinary feats of
mental masturbation (e.g. loss of "companionship" is worth millions of
dollars if the defendant is wealthy; nothing otherwise) to justify
sympathy bonanzas, and yet a third group have established boondoggle
jobs (e.g. lawyers and insurance people). All of these come together
to perpetuate a system which is nearly impossible to change.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:08:01 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:



One reason is that the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" makes it
impossible to obtain redress against a credit bureau unless
you can prove it intentionally & maliciously tried to damage
you.

This is not correct.

The FCRA provides for penalties in the case of "willful noncompliance"
(Section 616) and "negligent noncompliance" (Section 617)

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#616
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#617

and sets those sections out as _specific_exceptions_ to the "malice or willful
intent" provision of Section 610(e):

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#610


Section 610 gives immunity to "any consumer reporting agency, any
user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a
consumer reporting agency," etc, while 616 and 617 appear to make
specific exceptions for "persons" only, so that seems to let the
brueaus of the hook, no ? Or does "person" in this case also apply
to corporations (since there is also a reference to "natural
person").

In article , GregP wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:08:01 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:



One reason is that the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" makes it
impossible to obtain redress against a credit bureau unless
you can prove it intentionally & maliciously tried to damage
you.

This is not correct.

The FCRA provides for penalties in the case of "willful noncompliance"
(Section 616) and "negligent noncompliance" (Section 617)

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#616
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#617

and sets those sections out as _specific_exceptions_ to the "malice or willful

intent" provision of Section 610(e):

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#610


Section 610 gives immunity to "any consumer reporting agency, any
user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a
consumer reporting agency," etc, while 616 and 617 appear to make
specific exceptions for "persons" only, so that seems to let the
brueaus of the hook, no ? Or does "person" in this case also apply
to corporations (since there is also a reference to "natural
person").

As I understand it, unless otherwise qualified, the word "person" in legal
documents is typically used to mean either a "corporate person" (i.e. a
business, group, organization, partnership, etc) or an individual (a "natural
person"). However, I am not a lawyer, so take that with a grain of salt. :-)

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?