The Lone Ranger wrote:
8) I don't think the implication is that stealing is ever acceptable, after all it is one of the ten big no no's given to Moses. There is a practical side to all of this a sort of risk reward ratio, and cost effectiveness. It costs the company more to process petty theft than the item stolen, making it a money losing situation for the store. That is sort of the problem SC is now faced with after the Panama City awards and the settlements in California. Since the standard settlement is the retail value of the product in question about $5,000.00 a pop does it even make sense to push these suits, since the return does not even cover the legal costs to recover?
Just so you AND everyone else knows, I WAS JUST KIDDING!!! People take me too seriously. Sheesh.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
I don't think the implication is that stealing is ever acceptable, after all it is one of the ten big no no's given to Moses. There is a practical side to all of this a sort of risk reward ratio, and cost effectiveness. It costs the company more to process petty theft than the item stolen, making it a money losing situation for the store. That is sort of the problem SC is now faced with after the Panama City awards and the settlements in California. Since the standard settlement is the retail value of the product in question about $5,000.00 a pop does it even make sense to push these suits, since the return does not even cover the legal costs to recover?
