EF! Fined $1million in Idaho
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
>: > 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.
>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
>were fined 1 million, it could simply pass it on to their
>way they do their advertising costs. You and I cannot do
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