Hacker News Reader

Comment by NetBeck | Hacker News Reader

>totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket losses, Walmart said in the lawsuit.

This amount is immaterial for each party involved.

In terms of corporate Walmart, absolutely. But it's annoying as can be -- and even scary -- to employees at those stores. Customers too.

Walmart's real objective with a very public suit like this is to make sure that customers and employees see Tesla/Solar City as the villain. Not America's biggest retailer.

Even tight-fisted businesses get righteous about this kind of stuff. It's a great way to win the "we care" posturing game, at least for one day.

Right because destroying small town businesses, unethical employee treatment, etc. didn't push folks away, but a fire at a walmart somewhere in the country will.

Walmart may have been first with low prices rurally but with Amazon and other online realitors it was only a matter of time.

Small town businesses were destroyed by consumers who stopped shopping there.

I wouldn't call a fire merely "scary", is a real risk.

Yes, I think Tesla should be more diligent here.

This really doesn't matter. The fires endanger lives. Some things are more important than money. I should hope you'd realize that.

yeah and 5 fires on just 240 stores sounds like a staggering amount

Somehow I think if this was the other way round, and Walmart had caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to Tesla, the HN comments would be cheering them on and demanding they sue Walmart for every penny they had.

The fanboyism is ridiculous for grown adults.

Why would Tesla allow this to go to suit, given it’s likely press coverage? Surely there was opportunity to settle.

It's possible they asked for an absurd amount knowing they would want to settle.

When did Musk ever settle, if there is an opportunity to open his mouth and make things worse?

I just can see explanations coming from fanboys that Walmart sells engine oil and is therefore part of the ICE mafia out to get Tesla. And they short the stock, too! /s

I wonder if theres any danger of walmart being declared a vexatious litigant, since this amount is clearly nonsense. If their concern is damage from public opinion, aren't they required to quantify the damages? I don't think the court appreciates being used only as a tool for public opinion.

As is probably obvious to those with any legal knowledge, IANAL

That's not what a vexatious litigant is. Hundreds of thousands of dollars is a real loss.

Is it? Wal-Mart's revenue is 500billion. 500 thosand is .0001%. If you make 200k, thats like suing someone over 20 bucks

Totally, like why does Wal-Mart even bother selling items that cost less than a million dollars?

This lawsuit could drag on for years and cost a significant portion of the amount being sued over because the value is so small. Hardly an equivalence.

The alternative is that Wal-Mart establishes a policy of allowing vendors to damage them for 6-figure amounts with little consequence. That’s probably not the right strategy. Kind of like Newegg spending more defending patent lawsuits than settling with the trolls. (Do they still do that?)

Tons of lawsuits are brought for under 100k. This argument applies to all of them. The fact that Wal-Mart is a big company doesn't change anything.

Especially Walmart, which routinely prosecutes shoplifters even over trivial amounts to curb theft.

$20 bucks, and the fact that he sold you something as safe, that can burn down your business and kill people...

> Is it? Wal-Mart's revenue is 500billion. 500 thosand is .0001%. If you make 200k, thats like suing someone over 20 bucks

So we just accept violations of the law because of some arbitrary scale you made up? Can you cite any laws that grant amnesty for thefts _under_ a certain dollar amount?

I don’t know what the standards are for that but pretty much zero chance. First their shit burned up on your roof, thats a pretty solid prima facie reason to sue IMO, even if you later lose. Second 100k+ is not nothing, federal jurisdiction only requires 75k and to my knowledge there isn’t any kind of test of the money of the plaintiff as to whether the amount matters to them.

>I wonder if theres any danger of walmart being declared a vexatious litigant, since this amount is clearly nonsense.

What amount sounds like nonsense? I'd sue someone if they stole $100 from me, or sold me $100 of bad goods and wont do anything about it, even if I make 200K!

And what part of "fires at stores" (regardless of amount) sounds comforting, legal, and acceptable?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com