Re: Damages for repairs
- From: michaeljc70@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 31 Aug 2006 13:16:48 -0700
Specifically, I paid a company to winterize my boat. They charged me
for this service but did not perform it resulting in extensive damage.
Basically, the water system was completely damaged resulting in
replacement of the hot water heater, pumps, gaaskets, filters, etc. I
ordered all the parts and did the repairs myself.
I am trying to come to an agreement with the company, but it may come
down to filing a lawsuit. This would be done in Pro Se or small claims
court. In negotiating with them, I am wondering if it comes to suing
them, what I am legally entitled to. For example, if I spent $1000 on
parts and they offer me a $1000 and nothing for my time, should I take
it because legally I couldn't get any more by suing. Keep in mind that
if I had hired someone to make the repairs that would have cost at
least as much as the cost of the parts.
An additional aspect is that there was damage to items that weren't
replaced like carpet. It wasn't completely ruined, but the value was
diminished by the flooding that resulted from the company not
performing the contracted service.
duh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
michaeljc70@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
If a party is liable for damages for something they did to an item (say
a house or car), what can I recover in a lawsuit? Specifically, if I
buy the materials/parts and do the repairs myself, are my damages
limited to the materials? If this is the case, wouldn't you just pay
someone to repair it (assuming you are going to win the case) to
receive higher damages?
Making the assumptions you ask a reader to make -- though not
necessarily realistic, depending on whatever may be the facts of the
would be case -- this isn't like winning a lottery or being awarded a
bonus.
Depending whether you probably are correct to make the assumptions you
do, the general rule for damage recovery for negligence caused injury
to property is to restore the injured party to his or her or its
pre-damage position -- an exercise that basically requires proof of
the dollar value of the thing harmed just before the injury and what
would be the reasonable cost of restoring the lost value.
While the actual out-of-pocket costs for labor and materials would be
a factor in answering that question (what is 'reasonable' in the
circumstances?) deciding that issue, it would not necessarily be a
determinative basically for these illustrative reasons: if the
defendant's negligent driving resulted in one's seven-year old car
bumper being dented, plaintiff's having decided to replace it with a
new custom platinum-plated bumper ordinarily would not entitle
plaintiff to the full cost of that "replacement" any more than would
deciding to replace a negligently caused damaged linoleum kitchen
counter top with one of Italian marble; etc., etc.
What you might think you mean by "higher damages" is not only not
explained by you but, in addition to your so far also not explained
assumption that you are going to win the case, you do not appear to
have so far evaluated the impact on that case of whether you will or
won't have had to pay for an attorney and would or would not be fully
reimbursed for what might be other litigation expenses if you were not
to compromise/settle, if a settlement were feasible, and chose instead
to, as you put it, "win" by going to trial (assuming that defendant
does not decide to appeal the amount of damages awarded even if you
were in other respects to "win" the case).
.
- References:
- Damages for repairs
- From: michaeljc70
- Re: Damages for repairs
- From: duh
- Damages for repairs
- Prev by Date: Re: Defrauded by NY used car salesman who sold me a salvaged car.Please help
- Previous by thread: Re: Damages for repairs
- Next by thread: FAMSA Stores: Sued in Small Claims Court in Los Angeles?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
