Topic: Enterprise tries to charge woman for car stolen AFTER she had returned it!

[tenpenny]

Corporations should not be bullied just because they are enforcing their policies, which abide by the law.

You mean IF they abide by the law, there is no guarantee that a contract does, even if written by highly paid lawyers.

Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

[sailor723]

^ Hence the phrase "The law is an assfair" 

^^^ fixed 

^ Hence the phrase "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" 

(Henry VI part II Act 4 scene 2)

[sailor723]

^ Hence the phrase "The law is an assfair" 

^^^ fixed 

You must be either very young or very naive if you are confusing "The law" with fairness.

[tenpenny]

The law is a profession that provides a great livelihood to many people, who also conspire to ensure that the profession has more opportunity to make money in future.


Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

[my2cents]

If laws were fair and lawyers were right we wouldn't need judges.

If judges and lawyers were right we wouldn't need appeals courts.

If they were right we wouldn't need the supreme courts.

And if they were right we wouldn't need wars.

[Noto]

If laws were fair and lawyers were right we wouldn't need judges.

If judges and lawyers were right we wouldn't need appeals courts.

If they were right we wouldn't need the supreme courts.

And if they were right we wouldn't need wars.

Your entire argument is based on the first premise, which is incorrect.  We need judges to administer the law, not because laws aren't fair.  Wherein there is a legal dispute, there may be several laws in play, which may contradict or may be ambiguous.  Parliament creates laws, not lawyers or judges.  Parliament can be unfair.
In the civil context, including corporate law, it's not who has the most expensive lawyers.  I've beaten lawyers with their names on the doors at international offices...the law is upheld where it fits the situation.

Just because you don't like that Enterprise has more money than you doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to enforce their legal rights.  Similarly, just because Enterprise is a corporation doesn't mean they shouldn't have legal rights.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

If laws were fair and lawyers were right we wouldn't need judges.

If judges and lawyers were right we wouldn't need appeals courts.

If they were right we wouldn't need the supreme courts.

And if they were right we wouldn't need wars.

Your entire argument is based on the first premise, which is incorrect.  We need judges to administer the law, not because laws aren't fair.  Wherein there is a legal dispute, there may be several laws in play, which may contradict or may be ambiguous.  Parliament creates laws, not lawyers or judges.  Parliament can be unfair.
In the civil context, including corporate law, it's not who has the most expensive lawyers.  I've beaten lawyers with their names on the doors at international offices...the law is upheld where it fits the situation.

Just because you don't like that Enterprise has more money than you doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to enforce their legal rights.  Similarly, just because Enterprise is a corporation doesn't mean they shouldn't have legal rights.

Corporations lobby government to allow the rules that benefit them most. Our MPs are mostly lawyers and have to look after their lives after government, so are more than happy to oblige.

The corporations also have the money to get any judgements that do go against them tied up for years. Exxon finally exhausted every avenue in 2009, 20 years after the Valdez oil spill, while having their punitive damages reduced from $5B to $500M. The $5B was roughly one year of Exxon's net profit at the time. Hardly crippling for the company.

Without equal right to representation, the law will never be fair. The closest it comes now is in class action suits. But those are difficult to start in Canada and the end result is typically very low payouts to the individuals involved.

[tooscoops]

i love when lawyers get brought up.. people always act as if they are the worst thing ever and this lady is being taken advantage of and all that.... she has a lawyer as well that is trying to fight *for* her, right?

while i get shat on all the time for selling cars, must be tough for lawyers... whether they are on the "good" side or the "bad"... they are still seen as the enemy.

[sailor723]

The law is a profession that provides a great livelihood to many people, who also conspire to ensure that the profession has more opportunity to make money in future.


Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

You know the old saying....."One lawyer in a town and he starves....two lawyers in a town and they both get rich." 

[Northernridge]

Thankfully I haven't needed help with criminal law but other lawyers have helped me quite a bit over the years. I've also had law firms as clients and served on boards with lawyers, they seem pretty normal to me...maybe a little more refined at debate than most.

Complex law is a product of the world we live in...makes me wonder more about the law makers than the lawyers.

[sailor723]

Thankfully I haven't needed help with criminal law but other lawyers have helped me quite a bit over the years. I've also had law firms as clients and served on boards with lawyers, they seem pretty normal to me...maybe a little more refined at debate than most.

Complex law is a product of the world we live in...makes me wonder more about the law makers than the lawyers.

Often one and the same.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

"I hate all lawyers, except mine, he's terrific!" :-)

Sent from my G3 using Tapatalk Pro

[Noto]

Complex law is a product of the world we live in...makes me wonder more about the law makers than the lawyers.

^^^yip.  I have a client with a careless driving charge that I'm taking care of pro bono.  The lawmakers allow police to give out these tickets like flyers under a wiper blade - but at 6 points, with a minimum fine of $400, and the possibility of imprisonment, it is one of the most serious traffic offences.  I blame Parliament, and to a lesser extent, the police, but mostly Parliament for allowing such an economization of the law.  Traffic tickets are not about making money, they're about discouraging unsafe driving.  Just because an accident occurs does not mean that in every case a careless driving ticket should be given - especially in fender benders.

SirO, I laugh at any sentence that starts with "The corporations".

[Fobroader]

Complex law is a product of the world we live in...makes me wonder more about the law makers than the lawyers.

^^^yip.  I have a client with a careless driving charge that I'm taking care of pro bono.  The lawmakers allow police to give out these tickets like flyers under a wiper blade - but at 6 points, with a minimum fine of $400, and the possibility of imprisonment, it is one of the most serious traffic offences.  I blame Parliament, and to a lesser extent, the police, but mostly Parliament for allowing such an economization of the law.  Traffic tickets are not about making money, they're about discouraging unsafe driving.  Just because an accident occurs does not mean that in every case a careless driving ticket should be given - especially in fender benders.

SirO, I laugh at any sentence that starts with "The corporations".

This is that woman that couldnt control her car and went into oncoming traffic right....Im still in the boat that she deserved the ticket.

[Noto]

This is that woman that couldnt control her car and went into oncoming traffic right....Im still in the boat that she deserved the ticket.

Nope - that one was my friend, this one is my client.  My friend's ticket was turfed at the first appearance as there was no possibility of conviction based on the circumstances of the case.

This new client literally traded paint in a parking lot and got hit with careless driving.

[Fobroader]

This is that woman that couldnt control her car and went into oncoming traffic right....Im still in the boat that she deserved the ticket.

Nope - that one was my friend, this one is my client.  My friend's ticket was turfed at the first appearance as there was no possibility of conviction based on the circumstances of the case.

This new client literally traded paint in a parking lot and got hit with careless driving.

Sigh....sounds like the OPP is a bunch of bored, natzis simply looking to pad their pockets....the more I hear about them, the less I want to drive in that province. They were horrid when I was there, it sounds like they got worse.

[quadzilla]

Isn't the new way of giving tickets just give out the highest crime and let the courts work it out?

[Black Hatch]

This is that woman that couldnt control her car and went into oncoming traffic right....Im still in the boat that she deserved the ticket.

Nope - that one was my friend, this one is my client.  My friend's ticket was turfed at the first appearance as there was no possibility of conviction based on the circumstances of the case.

This new client literally traded paint in a parking lot and got hit with careless driving.

I though parking lots were private property and OUTSIDE roadway laws.

[random006]

Even the presence of the drop box itself implies that it is a typical way of returning a vehicle. If it was a significant risk, logically, the company wouldn't even have one.

It's not a significant risk to Enterprise - it's a significant risk to the renter, who has the option to use it or not.  Hence, logically, the company is gratuitously providing a service, and the renters of the world should be happy they have the option...even if they'd be crazy to opt for it.  I never would.

It's their car. Their representative is providing drop off instructions, they have a drop box, but they attempted to deny responsibility for the possible results of those features. The public backlash has pretty well demonstrated where the risk truly lies.

SirOsis, although i don't disagree with your point, let me say an opposing view.

just because something is offered does not mean that whoever's offering the service accept all liability.  like NoTo says, whoever's choosing to use the service do so with the understanding that they are liable for whatever that happens.

if i play around in the city park and injure myself, i would not hold the city liable, and it's just not reasonable for me to expect that just because city provides a park doesn't mean everything that results from using it is city's responsibility.

Ah but you have a choice as to whether you will play in a park or not.  If you choose not to, you will not be out of pocket anything.  If the woman waits until Monday morning to return the car, she will be out of pocket another day's rental.  If she returns it early, she faces the problem of possibly not being able to use the car for the purpose for which rented it in the first place.

The problem with this situation is that it places the renter in a legal limbo.  Nobody is there to receive the key, yet using the company supplied alternative places the renter in a situation of assuming all the risk and having none of the control.

The handoff of the key (and hence the car) must be handled better by the company.  Use cameras, hire staff to allow for longer working hours or even automate the process using a gated system that keys to a transponder in the car, perhaps.  In any case, more imaginative thinking is required than has been displayed currently by all parties involved.

Expensive legal proceedings or not, I think it is worth hashing this issue out in the courts and in the classrooms.  I can see Law professors going over this one quite thoroughly with their students.

[tooscoops]

i'm pretty sure there is stipulation saying that if the company is not open during the scheduled drop off, the rental is extended until regular operating hours at no additional cost to the customer.

gets out of that one.