Judges are supposed to use some digression. I doubt very much that the litigants losses for a $40 printer are $30K. Especially since he conveniently lost the printer.
I just don't believe that there are any laws which require the judge to (a) decide in the litigants favor with zero supporting evidence, and (b) allow $30K in damages for a $40 printer.
FTA, the court of appeals pretty much stated the above The $30,000 in damages "had no basis in reality," Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.
I'm left wondering why anyone supports a position which the judges describe as having no basis in reality.