http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/489685p-412418c.html
I know what the antiques dealer is trying to say that putting a homless man in front of a high class antiques shop is going to make him loose business. I wouldn't have spent that much money because the homeless man is telling me that I don't really need this expensive stuff, especially since this man doesn't have a job or a home and I do.
But exactly how is this man suposed to pay 1 mil if he can't afford it? They can't take nothing away from him and/or make him sell it. He has nothing?
Sure he could get a job but, it won't be enough. Minimum wage won't be able to pay of 1 mil.
Maybe he could have thought of another solution.
2007-01-21 11:28:43 · 6 answers · asked by lorrnae 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I feel for both sides. My impression is that the owner of the store sued for an outrageous amount to make a statement. He has been dealing with these same people for a very long time and it has been an ongoing problem for his business.
It is also the state's problem to help the homeless and not one man's duty although he could help them in some way if he thought about it.
2007-01-21 11:45:19 · answer #1 · answered by Jamie R 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
OK rightly or wrongly honestly would you step over people drinking and playing with themselves and spitting JUST to get into this guys store...............surely he has the right to be allowed to conduct his business after all he sure as heck pays enough taxes and the such like JUST to be able to open the doors, the least he can do is not have his customers step over at least four of them in front of his place.
BUT that said yes he could have took another route BUT would the average Joe public have listened many other ways////
2007-01-21 11:37:05 · answer #2 · answered by candy g 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, If I had a shop I woudl not want them hanging around it either. I think the lawsuit is more of an eyeopener andbased on principle than really seeking monetary damages.
2007-01-21 11:35:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I will paraphrase by saying, "There's no bigger fool than a stupid fool". In this case the antique dealer is forgetting one of the fundamentals of litigation, that is to "follow the money trail!"
2007-01-21 11:34:54 · answer #4 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He tried. Send the bum, yes bum not homeless person, packing.
2007-01-21 11:32:56 · answer #5 · answered by rikv77 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO, HE DID IT THE LEGAL WAY - DOESN'T MATTER THAT HE'LL NEVER SEE THE MONEY
THE GOODMAN FAMILY WILL NEVER SEE A PENNY FROM O.J. EITHER.
2007-01-21 11:34:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋