Think this through.

Suppose your neighbor has his own taxi. You do something stupid and he can't use the taxi for 3 days. So you say, "hey, come for work me instead of 3 days so you don't lose income." And then he comes along later, after you paid him 3 days wages, and says that you still own him 3 days of taxi driving earnings that he missed.

What would you say to him? The same thing BP said to the fishermen.

Uh, there's a bazillion things wrong in this world but this is not one of them.

knbber2: The point of the fund and the law is to make you whole, not to provide you with additional profit.

**points at that**

Weaver95

this ruling will likely not sit well with a lot of people.


I hope no one gets capped.

It's just Obama taking care of his oil buddies.

lets say some1 does crack, and burns down the whole city. every1 doesnt like this, so they help to clean up and get paid. now when they come to pay damages for your house, they say - no we already paid you to help clean up, but those lazy farkers over there that didnt help get what you got working your ass off. Really?? Doesnt really pay people for helping, it penalizes them.

Typical Republicans.

Mitigation. Rhymes with litigation. Coincidence?

Gwendolyn: I cannot believe I'm siding with BP on this...The fund is set up to recover lost wages. You know what I'm just going to point to what JerryLerman said about the taxi owner.

Sorry guys. I know your industry got farked but you didn't lose income if BP provided it through other means.

I don't get this logic. They are two unrealted business transactions. I heard the mitigation argument and as far as I can tell it is the law, but it really makes no sense.

Would they consider going and getting a job at McDonald to be a mitigation factor?

just seems crazy to me.

I guess that's why Im not a lawyer.

I hate really hate to say it, but I agree with BP on this one.

/Bastards

I don't see the outrage, either.

If your claim is for losses because you couldn't work, but you *did* work, what is the loss?

You should be paid for your full shrimping season *and* working the season cleaning oil? They had alternative income provided.

And they could have just not worked the spill, as an option.

Lacerated Spleen

It's just Obama the free market taking care of his its oil buddies.

It's simple. If BP is going to subtract their work-time from the total claim, then they obviously have to include the work-time when they initially file the claim. Fair all the way around.

On second thought, they should sue for psychological damages if they want more money than what they are "owed". I'd totally support that.

JerryLerman: Suppose your neighbor has his own taxi. You do something stupid and he can't use the taxi for 3 days. So you say, "hey, come for work me instead of 3 days so you don't lose income." And then he comes along later, after you paid him 3 days wages, and says that you still own him 3 days of taxi driving earnings that he missed.

Typically, you would tell your neighbor what the terms of the agreement will be. He might take issue if you never mentioned it and a third party brought it up.

It's times like this where I sort-of wish we were in China... because heads would be rolling at BP. Literally.

stirfrybry: Would they consider going and getting a job at McDonald to be a mitigation factor?

Sure. Imagine if the person immediately got another job that paid the same as they otherwise would have made. Now that person hasn't lost any income. Doesn't matter if it's for another company.

Lacerated Spleen: It's just Obama taking care of his oil buddies.

After hearing the Liberal Democrats practically demonize him as "Bush III" thanks to the Afghan War (Mishandle war. Cut defense budget) and the BP spill ("You guys got this, right?") I'm going to be amazed if anyone is left to stand next to him.

FWIW: I really like the guy (First black President? You know someone's going to gun for you) and think he's a good person who just happened to marry the First Psycho Woman. The problem is that Bush looked like he didn't care, Obama looks like he doesn't have a clue - and failed to set up his own Autonomous Cabinet.

That and Joe Biden wound up being as big of a threat as farting in a sulphur mine.

/NO, FIREFOX. IT IS "SULPHUR".

the market will correct this one, if it needs correcting. BP needs the boats out there for clean-up. Either this compensation package they are offering for that service will be enough to get enough boats out there for the job, or they'll have to sweeten the pot. If BP is not paying them enough to manage costs, the owners have every right to not accept the job.

Three Crooked Squirrels: However, a Plaintiff has a duty to mitigate damages by not passing up reasonable opportunities. The dumbass in the article who says he isn't going to work for BP or rent his boat to BP because they'll subtract that from his claim may find out they are going to subtract it from his claim anyway because he passed up a reasonable opportunity to mitigate damages.

What's going to happen, later? Years down the road, when courts finally start looking at these cases, BP is going to argue that just about EVERYBODY who didn't work in the cleanup effort refused gainful employment, and try to have everyone's claims reduced.

Lenny_da_Hog: I don't see the outrage, either.

If your claim is for losses because you couldn't work, but you *did* work, what is the loss?

You should be paid for your full shrimping season *and* working the season cleaning oil? They had alternative income provided.

And they could have just not worked the spill, as an option.

Do the wages amount to same?
Is shrimping more lucrative?
What if they had to put in 1000 hours to make up for what they could have made in 100 hours?

This is why I find it disturbing. Not all business pays the same

Lenny_da_Hog: I don't see the outrage, either.

If your claim is for losses because you couldn't work, but you *did* work, what is the loss?

You should be paid for your full shrimping season *and* working the season cleaning oil? They had alternative income provided.

And they could have just not worked the spill, as an option.


if you argue that that's fair, you need to rethink why people pay people in the first place. Hint, its a beneficial exchange of vlaue. Arguing on the internet. Your probably a troll. No people can be that awry in their value and beneficial exchange ideas..

stirfrybry: What if they had to put in 1000 hours to make up for what they could have made in 100 hours?

Another key.

Hey, if they're paying comparable HOURLY wages, then more power to them. However, I don't think that's what will happen...

I see where people are going with this, but 1) helping clean up the spill they probably aren't making anywhere near what they were making before the spill. Also, 2) a lot of people lost work almost immediately after the spill and couldn't get BP to hire them, even at far lower wages than usual, for weeks. So they lost a lot of money that they would have been earning otherwise. I would say they're still entitled to the claim since their businesses got all farked up and they were just doing what they could to clean up BP's mess and get back on with their lives. But I just ate waaay too much Jack in the Box so my brain may not be operating very effectively. I need to go take a nap.

The taxi analogy doesn't quite work as stated. Maybe if your stupid act chased away passengers so the taxi drivers couldn't work. And there's no known guarantee when passengers will ever return to the same level as before.

downstairs
Ok, I'm not a lwayer. In fact I don't even have a Fark Law GED. So I may be way off... but is that "specific performance?"

You're requiring someone to perform a specific task, which cannot be required to settle claims, etc.?

In the end, the shrimper is a shrimper. Was expecting to shrimp and make $x/hour. Now you're REQUIRING him to work for BP or loan them his property to settle the claims. That can't be right.


Not exactly. Specific performance is a concept in contract law. If you breach a contract to provide land, goods, or services, specific performance is a remedy wherein they make you provide those exact services of sell the property. Generally, specific performance is not ordered, and the person in breach is required to pay money damages. (One common exception is the case of the sale of land). In this case, a person who is losing wages is required to mitigate his damages by taking reasonable alternate work instead of sitting on his butt, so it's a different situation. BTW, as a lawyer, i understand the purpose of the law, but as a human being (who won't be happy about this situation until all the BP executives are sleeping under London Bridge) I understand why people are upset. BP should be required to pay massive punitive damages, which go above and beyond making the people "whole" as far as lost wages are concerned, and hopefully the law will allow it.

Well if I am out of work and then I do a short term job I don't to keep getting unemployment, while I am doing that job. WTF is the dif here?
/fishermen are winers

I mean, let's say that it is simply a gross sum mitigation... then who pays for fuel? I mean, if you have to work 3 times the hours in order to earn as much money, you'll probably be using a lot more fuel (even moreso if you have to travel to further waters in order to do the job). Basically, you'd be working longer, for far less pay, AND have far higher transportation/maintenance costs.

Maybe BP will cover everything, down to the penny, but I seriously have doubts...

I'd like to thank all the people who provided excellent answers to questions posed in this thread. I feel I've learned a great deal and this has to be a first for fark thread

Thank you, fark

stirfrybry: Lenny_da_Hog: I don't see the outrage, either.

If your claim is for losses because you couldn't work, but you *did* work, what is the loss?

You should be paid for your full shrimping season *and* working the season cleaning oil? They had alternative income provided.

And they could have just not worked the spill, as an option.

Do the wages amount to same?
Is shrimping more lucrative?
What if they had to put in 1000 hours to make up for what they could have made in 100 hours?

This is why I find it disturbing. Not all business pays the same

All of that should go into working out the final settlement. The claimants should be paid for their actual seasonal losses.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ARE A JOKE.