Student sues Amazon after Kindle eats his homework

[=X=]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I'd say he has a good point there.

Hell then I might as well sue SONY I can't tell you many times I've lost bookmarks due to sony's buggy software.

I think this is a bogus case, but after that lady that sued McDonalds for burning herself, anything is possible.

=X=

[numtini]

I can barely use that keyboard for a simple author search. Are there really any people who use it for notes that extensive?

[HarryT]

How much is a few hours of a 17 year old kid's time "worth"? $10?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by =X=

Hell then I might as well sue SONY I can't tell you many times I've lost bookmarks due to sony's buggy software.

I think this is a bogus case, but after that lady that sued McDonalds for burning herself, anything is possible.

=X=

She had third-degree burns that would leave permanent marks in the crotch area. And not because the coffee was hot, but because the location's policy was to "superheat" their coffee so that it would be still "very hot" some time later when they figured their customers would drink.

Based on my humble recollection...

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How much is a few hours of a 17 year old kid's time "worth"? $10?

A 17 year old is an adult by most non-ageist measure. He could reasonably be employed in fairly high-paying jobs.

I would therefore say, his time (while probably is cheaper) might just be worth as much or more than mine or yours.

Or is my logic faulty?

- Ahi

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How much is a few hours of a 17 year old kid's time "worth"? $10?

That would depend on some outside factors I would think. Did he have enough time to do his work over again, or was his assignment late because of this? For all we know he was a straight "A" student who, because of this late assignment, was dropped to a "B". So, he lost the scholarship that he was gunning for and as a result will be unable to attend the Ivy League college of his choice. Not to mention the rest of his grades have fallen because of the depression from his "B". He's probably been set up for a life of poverty and homelessness as a result. His long-time girlfriend broke up with him, because she always wanted to be married to a highly paid doctor, which he clearly won't become. All because Amazon deleted "1984" without warning.

Sure it's a stretch, but I'm sure his lawyer has some imagination.

[ahi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...7s_Restaurants

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.

and

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in a New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of “gross negligence” for selling coffee that was “unreasonably dangerous” and “defectively manufactured.” McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by ahi

A 17 year old is an adult by most non-ageist measure. He could reasonably be employed in fairly high-paying jobs.... Or is my logic faulty?

Rather.

First, he's not an adult in the US until he's 18. This is not "ageism," it's a legal definition; he's still a minor. Second, he's still a student. Even if he wasn't, 17 year olds who pull down $70k a year or make $200 an hour are, to put it mildly, a rarity.

That said, I don't believe there is a specific formula that is used to determine damages, and it's probably not based in this case on something like "lost wages."

[John Bailey]

Originally Posted by fugazied

Sucks for him but I definitely don't think it is worth suing over. I mean the guy is 17, I think it's pretty likely his analysis of 1984 wasn't groundbreaking, and his high school 'assignment' is probably 5000 words, so not a huge stretch.

Is that actually relevant?

[Elfwreck]

Irrelevant tangent:

Originally Posted by HarryT

How much is a few hours of a 17 year old kid's time "worth"? $10?

Doesn't matter; the point is, it's worth *something*, and Amazon took that something away arbitrarily.

So they owe for those few hours of work, plus the extra hours he has to spend scrabbling to make up for it, plus something for the stress. (All those are a small-ish collection.)

Plus legal fees, and that's where it gets outrageous... because if he could just submit an invoice to Amazon and say, "you cost me 3 hours work, 2 hours make-up work, and 5 hours panicking from stress--pay up," he wouldn't need a lawyer. Since Amazon won't pay up without a court ruling, they get to pay for the cost of the proceedings, if it goes against them.

(Oh, and how much the teenager's time is worth--US Federal minimum wage is now $7.25/hour. In my state it's $8/hour. So, before the lawyers are involved, we'd be arguably looking at $50-150 worth of damages, with the high end of that being possible if you rate his work as skilled labor. And there's something very wrong with not being able to go to court & get a ruling for that amount.)

[Gladtobemom]

What just bugs me the absolute most about this whole thing . . .

Why couldn't Amazon have stopped selling the book, then turned the money received for it over to the publisher. This would have adequately covered the publisher's profits off of the sales. Publishers don't make more than a buck for a paperback of a non upgrade type paperback.

Sure, Amazon wouldn't have made money off of them. But the books were bought in good faith. Why tick off thousands of users?

Is it just flexing the old Amazon muscles?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Gladtobemom

What just bugs me the absolute most about this whole thing . . .

Why couldn't Amazon have stopped selling the book, then turned the money received for it over to the publisher.

Since this copy was (I believe) $.99, and the publisher sells authorized copies for $9.99, I suspect they would've demanded what they believed the books were worth, not what Amazon got for them. Amazon was trying to avoid paying the extra $9 per book.

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Since this copy was (I believe) $.99, and the publisher sells authorized copies for $9.99, I suspect they would've demanded what they believed the books were worth, not what Amazon got for them. Amazon was trying to avoid paying the extra $9 per book.

I don't think it would have broke amazon to pony up the full 9.99, seeing as how it was their lack of foresight that caused it to begin with.

I also think that had Amazon pulled the book once they realized, then gone to the publishers and explained what had happened, they would have even settled for less than the full 9.99.

And there would have been no negative publicity.

However, hindsight is 20/20.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

I don't think it would have broke amazon to pony up the full 9.99, seeing as how it was their lack of foresight that caused it to begin with.

I also think that had Amazon pulled the book once they realized, then gone to the publishers and explained what had happened, they would have even settled for less than the full 9.99.

And there would have been no negative publicity.

However, hindsight is 20/20.

Which was my position in the last thread, and the one before. Amazon attempted to mitigate the liability for their own negligence by illegaly reneging on purchases made in good faith by their customers.

This student’s case is extreme as actual work was expended, however if I was in the middle of reading a novel and someone took it and destroyed it I’d be seriously P.O.ed!

[griffonwing]

This might even incite others to obtain this book via torrents and darknet sites, as opposed to spending money for another book in case it was pulled again.

Yes, I'm aware they were refunded, but still, the thought of it happening again might deter me.