Quote from: Mr2001 on June 30, 2011, 06:01:55 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on June 30, 2011, 05:36:30 AM

Then if I blow up your car, your damages are all theoretical. Maybe it would have broken down and cost more to repair than it was worth. Maybe you would never have sold it.

You say that as though the car itself doesn't matter! First I had a car, then you blew it up, and now I have no car. All I have is a pile of shards that I can't drive to work. Those are tangible damages.

Right, but think about why that matters. It's remarkably subtle. Is it because the car is now worth less? Not really because there is no right to have your property hold its value. Is it because the car won't do what you need it to do? Not really because there is no right to have your property remain useful to you. The crux really is that you suffer actual damages that are fairly attributable to my wrongful act. You have a right not to be the victim of wrongful acts.

Quote from: Mr2001 on June 30, 2011, 06:01:55 AM

Quote

As I quite clearly said, their has to be a wrongful act and the harm has to be fairly traceable to a wrongful act.

This seems both unnecessary and a little too convenient. Harming me is a wrongful act in itself - it's wrong to harm people, isn't it? If diminishing the resale value of my property is a legitimate, actionable harm, how can you say no wrongful act has taken place when you do it?

Simply diminishing the value of property is not a wrongful act. I can diminish the value of your Rembrandt by selling my 10 Rembrandts. That's not wrongful. There is no right to a high resale value. Rights have to have some source. There has to be some wrongful act or some negligence or you have to meet one of the narrow special cases where this is not required (strict liability). If you can kill with legal blows, that's fair.

Quote

Quote from: JoelKatz on June 30, 2011, 05:38:26 AM

The cost to restore even very cheap items to their original state can be exorbitant.

In that case you'd use the replacement cost, unless you can make a convincing argument that a replacement is insufficient.

Some items are irreplaceable. And in some cases, a replacement doesn't fully compensate the person. There's no simple formula.

Quote

Quote

And in some cases, even if you restore something to its original state, additional harm is still done (like the cost of renting another home in the meantime). You have to sum all the actual damages fairly attributable to the act. It's actually not as simple as "cost to restore" or "market value".

Correct, but you have to be careful not to include phony, wishful damages in that sum.

I agree. "If you hadn't hit me with your car, I would have turned my business around" doesn't fly without evidence. You have to substantiate your damages, but the threshold isn't particularly high. More likely than not is sufficient.