Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8924229" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Landlord owns an apartment building.Landlord says that next year, they will be raising the rent $200 a month.Tenants complain. This will be a substantial hardship, they say! Landlord hears tenants, and agrees to not raise the rent.Now, during the time between the announcement and the walkback, it could be argued that there was &quot;harm.&quot; For example, I am sure it is stressful to be a tenant. Some tenants might have chosen to have moved. Others, worried about the landlord in the future, might makes plans about moving in the future, even knowing that the rent isn't going up.Trouble is- this is such an attenuated idea of &quot;harm,&quot; that is is difficult to have conversations with people because that's not how you normally view it. It's not a harm- it's an economic cost.This happens all the time. You accept a job offer, move across the country, and get laid off. That sucks. It really, truly sucks. It sucks in a manner more (I would argue) than what Hasbro did. But it's not harm. Your have a contract with a supplier for widgets and they decide to sell the widgets to someone else and just pay you the damages for the breach- even though you really needed the widgets and were depending on the contract. Oh well! Next time, write a better contract. People are so caught up in using words they aren't seeing what actually happened. Corporation had plan. Consumers and partners reacted badly. Corporation course corrected. This is what we wanted. If anything, I think that there are people that are almost disappointed in their victory. Such is life.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8924229, member: 7023840"] Landlord owns an apartment building. Landlord says that next year, they will be raising the rent $200 a month. Tenants complain. This will be a substantial hardship, they say! Landlord hears tenants, and agrees to not raise the rent. [I]Now, during the time between the announcement and the walkback, it could be argued that there was "harm." For example, I am sure it is stressful to be a tenant. Some tenants might have chosen to have moved. Others, worried about the landlord in the future, might makes plans about moving in the future, even knowing that the rent isn't going up.[/I] Trouble is- this is such an attenuated idea of "harm," that is is difficult to have conversations with people because that's not how you normally view it. It's not a harm- it's an economic cost. This happens all the time. You accept a job offer, move across the country, and get laid off. That sucks. It really, truly sucks. It sucks in a manner more (I would argue) than what Hasbro did. But it's not harm. Your have a contract with a supplier for widgets and they decide to sell the widgets to someone else and just pay you the damages for the breach- even though you really needed the widgets and were depending on the contract. Oh well! Next time, write a better contract. People are so caught up in using words they aren't seeing what actually happened. Corporation had plan. Consumers and partners reacted badly. Corporation course corrected. This is what we wanted. If anything, I think that there are people that are almost disappointed in their victory. Such is life. [/QUOTE]

Verification