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.

Comments

US Legal system

[Anonymous Coward]

Where it's not about whether you win or lose, it's about bankrupting the opponent

Re:We need Loser pays

[jeff4747]

Loser pays would also make it basically impossible to sue any entity that has more money than you. The risk would be far too great, even if you had a legitimate dispute.

Let the judge award "loser pays" only after meeting a high threshold. Such as in situations where no rational person would consider it a legitimate dispute.

Awesome legal hacking by plaintif

[mi]

The winning technique used by the plaintiff was thus:

1. Send a letter to the target asking him to admit fault and owing a certain amount of money ($30K, $600K, whatever).
2. Wait for him to not respond in 30 days
3. Voila, by Indiana law, this not-responding is equivalent to the admission being sought.
4. Profit, obviously.

The judge, who awarded him $30K (plus interest), acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36, which sets the 30-day deadline for responding to requests for admissions.

The appeal court noted:

"He did not send requests claiming $30,000 and $300,000 and $600,000 in damages because he believes those figures are legally justified and thought Costello might agree," Vaidik wrote. "He sent them because he hoped Costello would not respond, rendering the matters admitted..."

Yes, he did, you dimwits. You sat on that rule for years and saw nothing wrong with it. You saw nothing wrong with it applied by your fellow pedigreed lawyers acting just as predatory — if only a little less obviously — against others. Suddenly, a man comes around filing his own lawsuits, representing himself in court — and you find yourself bound by your own arcane rules.

"Oh, but we did not mean for it be used that way." Well, you should not have written it that way then...

Whether the sold printer was broken, whether the seller really did try to sell a lemon — that's small potatoes. What pan Zavodnik exposed was the incompetence of Indiana's judges. Hurrah for the hacker!

Re:The words "AS IS" are your friends

[Kjella]

None of them would have helped here, since the actual facts never went to court. Basically if someone files a crazy lawsuit and motions you must respond or lose by default. The purpose is to avoid stalling and to get as many things as possible settled so the court can only deal with the issues in dispute, but the "fallback strategy" is not good. If the motion is not answered it should go to the court for a court order, if the court order is not answered it should go to contempt. Having a "non-action" count as admission should be a last resort.