EF! Fined $1million in Idaho

charliew charliew at hal-pc.org
Mon Nov 11 17:53:02 EST 1996


In article <567fti$2prt at sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
   bds at ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
>Mike Asher (masher at tusc.net) wrote:
>: Joseph Zorzin <redoak at vgernet.net> wrote:
>: > I have some appreciation for both sides of this case as 
I'm both a
>: > practicing forester and I'm also proud to call myself 
an
>: > environmentalist.
>: > 
>: > But if the true damage was only $20,000 then why the 
&#@*% did the court
>: > award the company over a million bucks?
>
>: It's called punitive damages, and they are often awarded 
in cases of
>: intentional malice.  You don't seem to have a problem 
with punitive damages
>: against corporations.
>
>I don't like punitive damages against corporations, either. 
 It is
>simple retribution, a tit for a tat, that does nothing to 
solve in any
>way the real problems.
>
>But you have to recognise the unequal situation.  If the 
lumber company
>were fined 1 million, it could simply pass it on to their 
customers the
>way they do their advertising costs.  You and I cannot do 
things that
>way. 

This is absolutely untrue if significant competition exists, 
especially in a commodity market with "thin" profit margins.
Or, to put it another way, if it was this easy to "make a 
buck", I'd go into business for myself, price gouge my 
customers, and retire in 5 or 10 years a rich man.  



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list