Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
But with theft, the police are brought in. Walmart would need to sue for damages and an independent judge would decide if it they are applicable. There are processes in place to ensure justice can occur.
|
So why can't Impark do the same thing? (Or hey, if free men on the land can appoint their own police force, why not impark?
)
Or do they just choose not to? Possibly because it would be too cumbersome?
Which I can appreciate if they don't; there's been a number of times when I could have taken a tenant to court but didn't because the cost to me would have not made it "worth my while".
Just because the nature of a business (i.e. many small transactions rather than few large ones) makes it more difficult (or impossible) to utilize the law to hold people to their commitments or make them responsible for their actions seems like the fault of the legal system, not the business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
By doing their own policing AND application of penalties it leads to more overzealous application.
|
I see what you are saying there and I can get that.
So a more reasonable law might be to limit what Impark can charge.
For landlords in Alberta, it's illegal to charge fees or penalties. What we can charge though is damages.. so if a tenant is late I can't charge a $100/day late fee, but I can charge damages (i.e. time it takes me to move money to cover the mortgage, interest on the money not paid, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-hole
Yep! I'll go with moral constructivism for $100 please Alex.
|
Or just trying to treat other people the way I would want to be treated.