Joe Biden's Presidency

[catman]

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.

[valade16]

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.

[valade16]

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.

[valade16]

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

[catman]

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?

[valade16]

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...

[catman]

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.

[valade16]

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...

[valade16]

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.

[catman]

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.

[valade16]

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 don’t know how you’re struggling with this.

[natepro]

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?

[catman]

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 don’t know how you’re 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.

[valade16]

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: that’s up for the trier of fact (the jury) to decide, in the same way it’s 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.

[valade16]

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, you’ve just ensured every company will charge 5.99%.