ExiledInIllinois Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 I was giving a wise ass response. I figured Tom was trying to get people going with this post. Actually... You got me to start digging deep... I never even knew the term "Civil Recovery" letter... I took a stab in the dark and just Googled a sentence that Tom explained and bingo! It seems it is happening everywhere. I am not sure if Tom knew what "civil recovery" was either... But IMO, sounds like a extortion and part scam. What is it with the generations now or is this just human nature to fall for this stuff? The only person to get me to pay is a judge, and it as to be to their face. Your comment helped immensely... At least we know what to call it. Has anybody else brought this up during the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2010 Author Share Posted March 20, 2010 Actually... You got me to start digging deep... I never even knew the term "Civil Recovery" letter... I took a stab in the dark and just Googled a sentence that Tom explained and bingo! It seems it is happening everywhere. I am not sure if Tom knew what "civil recovery" was either... But IMO, sounds like a extortion and part scam. What is it with the generations now or is this just human nature to fall for this stuff? The only person to get me to pay is a judge, and it as to be to their face. Your comment helped immensely... At least we know what to call it. Has anybody else brought this up during the thread? I had NO idea; your post was the first I'd heard of it. I mean, if retailers want to argue that they should be compensated for costs related to theft, then fine...let them sue for it in in civil court like the rest of us have to. But to actually have the legal right to bill people directly for presumed damages? That's just totally !@#$ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 I had NO idea; your post was the first I'd heard of it. I mean, if retailers want to argue that they should be compensated for costs related to theft, then fine...let them sue for it in in civil court like the rest of us have to. But to actually have the legal right to bill people directly for presumed damages? That's just totally !@#$ed. Yes it is. Who determined the cost of the damages? I [Wal Mart] can pull a figure out of my hat with no proof? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts