Slashdot Mirror
Man Sued For $30K Over $40 Printer He Sold On Craigslist (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader cites an article on USA Today: Selling a used, black-and-white printer through Craigslist seemed simple and straightforward to Doug Costello. It wasn't. What the 66-year-old Massachusetts man didn't know then is that he would spend the next 6 and a half years embroiled in a complicated and confusing legal dispute in Indiana over that printer, which, according to its buyer, was broken. He would find himself liable for about $30,000 in damages. He would pay a lawyer at least $12,000 in his battle to escape the legal mess. And it all started with a piece of hardware he sold online for about $40 in 2009. With shipping and other costs, the total was less than $75, according to court records.Gersh Zavodnik, the printer's buyer, has been described as "prolific, abusive litigant" who has brought dozens of lawsuits against individuals and businesses. He often asks for "astronomical" damages.
Along with
"No warranty from seller"
"Seller assumes no liability"
"All sales final"
"No Refunds"
It doesn't. His cased was dismissed from small claims, because he threw out the evidence (printer). He refiled in Superior Court with a bunch of new complaints. He didn't sue for $30,000, what he did was send a Request for Admission to the opponent requesting he admit to owing the 30,000 or the 300,000 or the 600,000. Marion County has a rule that if you don't respond to a Request for Admission in 30 days then you are presumed to have admitted the fact at issue. That was the plaintiff's game here. Send a bunch of requests and hope they don't respond.
Yes they do. In some countries loser has to pay for all court costs. This prevents people and companies from bring a suit they know they will lose.
Here in west australia you would bring a claim like this to the small claims tribunal, or in other states magistrates course. You generally dont employ lawyers at these things, and its largely a couple of people resolving a dispute in front of the judge whos primarily there to mediate the dispute rather than award outrageous and punitive damages. Its pretty cheap, and appropriate for small claims.
The littigant would have been awarded $75 (the amount he paid) and possibly a refund of his court fees.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.