• IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Okay let’s go with your thing. So developer can now, by your logic, pick any property they want and just build there without the consent of the owner, as long as they later find a similar enough lot to switch with the owner later? And the owner just has to agree to it because it’s still a fair trade?

    • schmidtster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Of course they can’t just up and fucking do it lmfao, the second time a company tried that they would lose their business license and everything else. The courts aren’t stupid like you are.

      Shit happens, most people understand this, I’m sorry you expect everyone to be perfect.

      • ghterve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        They don’t expect them to be perfect. They expect them to be accountable for the consequences of their mistakes.

        • schmidtster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          And they were in this specific case……… they aren’t trying to railroad her, they gave her the 2 standard options for remedying it, that has been used for decades already throughout the industry to deal with these exact issues, since shit fucking happens. If a business starts making a habit of it, of course they will deal with it, you seriously think they would just let a business continually do it? Get a fucking grip on reality FFS.

          She refused the two standard options, and is now suing for above and beyond damages, that’s why she’s being countersued. The business was trying to be accountable FFS lmfao. Both sides can be assholes AND wrong here, or did that thought never cross your mind….?