this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
566 points (90.0% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
35455 readers
531 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating"
Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined.
Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Lemmy Review
2.Lemmy Be Wholesome
3.Lemmy Shitpost
4.No Stupid Questions
5.You Should Know
6.Credible Defense
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
yeah, well, that’s all fine and good if she could afford a good lawyer to take up her case, but she’s financially screwed because of this and is already struggling to even keep her business open. rich people can afford to just sue everyone who makes them mad, but small business owners like this lady who went out on a limb for this huge order and got screwed may not be able to afford to shell out the money it would cost to engage in a lengthy lawsuit with the legal powers of Tesla.
so, what the law allows her to do and what she is practically capable of doing are probably two very different things in terms of her being able to seek legal remedy.
Just go directly after the person who made the order and take them to small claims court. She could only recoup $10,000 that way, but I believe the person would have to show. Not some lawyer on their behalf. I believe in California, lawyers are not allowed to represent anyone in small claims. Chances are the tesla person wouldn't even show and several months later the baker would eventually end up with a check.
What's stopping anyone from going to small claims with elon musk or any other high profile Californian? Just curious, I'm not from the US.
I don't know that there's anything that would stop it, really.
But like, what's your point?
Setting aside all the practical ways this suit could be handled affordably (e.g., her actual damages were a much smaller monetary sum compared to that invoiced amount and probably eligible for small claims)...
Having a policy around cancellations in the invoices would not materially effect anything here. While it might be helpful to ensure a good-faith customer behaves in a professional and appropriate way, such policies have little effect on a bad-faith customer.
Even without an explicit policy, this is fairly straightforward promissory estoppel, or at least something very much like it. If she had a policy, she would have a very strong case. Without, I still reckon she has a very strong case -- pretty much just as strong. Either way, the recourse is the courts.
the point is that there's a difference between a legal path for her to pursue her claim and her potential financial ability to do so, and that this represents a fundamental inequality of the application of fair justice for those who can't afford it.