Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 726 of 900 FirstFirst ... 226626676716724725726727728736776826 ... LastLast
Results 10,876 to 10,890 of 13493
  1. #10876
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    11,804
    Quote Originally Posted by spliff(TONE) View Post
    Captain Save A Ho to the rescue!
    OK Spliff, you explain where those terms are defined within the context of the bill. I'll wait.

  2. #10877
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49,742
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Why do they need to be defined? They need to be explained within the context of the bill. What, according to the bill, is unconsionably excessive? What, according to the bill, is an unfair advantage, and to whom is it unfair? What, according to the bill, is an unreasonable price increase? Who determines when the bill's limits have been exceeded?
    It sounds great to "go after Big Oil", but the terms appear to be quite arbitrary.
    They are not. They all have legal definitions:

    https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionar...ably-excessive

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unfair-advantage/

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/grossly

    https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionar...onably-reflect


    These are terms for which there is already a legal definition and much case law litigating their definitions. The reason they didn't include the definitions in the bill is that the definitions are already known to a legal standard.


    The only person who would have a complaint that the definitions are undefined is somehow who knows absolutely nothing about the law. Enter Brett.

  3. #10878
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49,742
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Sorry catman, you clearly don't know what those terms mean. Did I do that right?
    You haven't done anything right. I just posted that there are actual legal definitions for all the terms and words you were just saying were undefined.

    You complaining you don't know the definitions of these phrases was a longwinded way to say you know nothing about the law or what you're talking about. But I'd expect no less from someone who couldn't even hack it as a pizza delivery driver.

  4. #10879
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49,742
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    I thought the word "lie" was already on your list of things you don't understand. Add it if it's not.

    Post 10854
    I saw the post. To summarize: you and catman both understand the definitions of all those terms. The law understands the definition of all those terms. Everyone who wrote the bill understands the definitions of all those terms. Everyone understands the definitions of all those terms.

    And your complaint is that we don't know the definitions of those terms

  5. #10880
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    11,804
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    They are not. They all have legal definitions:

    https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionar...ably-excessive

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unfair-advantage/

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/grossly

    https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionar...onably-reflect


    These are terms for which there is already a legal definition and much case law litigating their definitions. The reason they didn't include the definitions in the bill is that the definitions are already known to a legal standard.


    The only person who would have a complaint that the definitions are undefined is somehow who knows absolutely nothing about the law. Enter Brett.
    All well and good, but what is the definition within the context of the bill? What are the limits of the bill and who determines what exceeds them?

  6. #10881
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49,742
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    All well and good, but what is the definition within the context of the bill? What are the limits of the bill and who determines what exceeds them?
    This can't be a serious question. The definitions within the context of the bill are the legal definitions of those terms. Who determines who exceeds them are the judges who will hear any case brought against them for violation of this bill. Like how every other law works...

  7. #10882
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    11,804
    It most definitely is a serious question. I could not be more serious. The bill has no limitations as to what is excessive. How is excessive determined? There is no context.
    This is precisely why little gets done to stop things of this nature.

  8. #10883
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49,742
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    It most definitely is a serious question. I could not be more serious. The bill has no limitations as to what is excessive. How is excessive determined? There is no context.
    What in the **** are you talking about? Of course it has a limitation. The limitation is the legal definition, which I provided.

    It's not like anyone can go "I think that was excessive therefore you're guilty!" It still works within the framework of the law.

    If the authorities think someone is in violation of what is excessive, they will attempt to charge the individual with the crime, assuming there is enough evidence to charge them, they will be charged, where a Judge and jury will hear the case and determine whether they violated the legal definition of those terms and therefore the bill.

    This is how the legal system works...
    Last edited by valade16; 11-23-2022 at 06:15 PM.

  9. #10884
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49,742
    Since it's obvious Catman didn't look up the definition of what constitutes unreasonably excessive, here is a legal definition of the term:

    A price is unconscionably excessive when the amount charged represents a gross disparity between the price of the consumer goods or services and the price at which the consumer goods or services were sold or offered for sale within the chain of distribution in the usual course of business seven days immediately prior to the state of disaster emergency.


    Again, there are legal terms for all of these. There is also case law with precedents of when judges found X amount over previous cost to be excessive. Again... this is how the law works.

  10. #10885
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    11,804
    OK, you provided the legal definition of the terms. Well and good. I will ask again. What are the definitions within the context of the bill? If you don't know, just say so.
    Again, this is why little is accomplished to stop things of this nature.

  11. #10886
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49,742
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    OK, you provided the legal definition of the terms. Well and good. I will ask again. What are the definitions within the context of the bill? If you don't know, just say so.
    Again, this is why little is accomplished to stop things of this nature.
    I am telling you. Do I need to bold it so it sticks the definitions within the context of the bill are the LEGAL definitions of the terms

    I honest to God donít know how youíre struggling with this.

  12. #10887
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    49,700
    reasonably reflected additional costs, not within the control of that person, that were paid, incurred, or reasonably anticipated by that person, or reflected additional risks taken by that person to produce, distribute, obtain, or sell such product under the circumstances; and
    My god, it doesn't even define what "costs," "person," "paid," "anticipated," "taken," "sell," "under," or "circumstances" mean in the context of the bill!

    This bill is a mess! How is anyone supposed to know what a "person" is in the context of this bill?


    "It is a grotesque parody of the bazaar at Marrakech, as if dumb animals had been granted only the amount of sentience required to mock humanity."

  13. #10888
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    11,804
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I am telling you. Do I need to bold it so it sticks the definitions within the context of the bill are the LEGAL definitions of the terms

    I honest to God donít know how youíre struggling with this.
    I'm not struggling at all. I simply want to know what percentage is going to be considered excessive. Is 3% excessive? How about 6%? Again, if you don't know the answer, just say so.
    As I said, this is why nothing gets accomplished with bills of this nature.

  14. #10889
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49,742
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    I'm not struggling at all. I simply want to know what percentage is going to be considered excessive. Is 3% excessive? How about 6%?
    As I said, this is why nothing gets accomplished with bills of this nature.
    The answer to that question is: thatís up for the trier of fact (the jury) to decide, in the same way itís up for them to decide whether someone committed murder.

    From looking at the case law briefly, I can tell you it probably needs to be much higher than 3-6% for a jury to find them guilty of price gouging.
    OK it has to be higher than 6% to be considered excessive. What number do you think a jury would find to be excessive?
    Again, the bill is poorly explained. They use nebulous terms that mean different things to different people. Some would say that 1% is excessive, others would say that 10% is not excessive. Some would say that having 20% of the market constitutes an unfair advantage, others would say that it does not.
    Last edited by catman; 11-23-2022 at 06:27 PM.

  15. #10890
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49,742
    Also, putting an exact % or dollar value is a terrible idea because the moment you do that, every company is going to charge up to that exact amount.

    So if you say 6% is excessive, youíve just ensured every company will charge 5.99%.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •