News Article: Luigi Aquilini sued following deaths of 2 children in Washington State

[F A N]

Two children are dead. Please elaborate on these essential differences you are talking about.

That's the at the crux of the problem IMO -- the system permits these multiple degrees of separation in the first place. I am quite confident that if you start to hold the top end executives directly responsible for the bad acts committed while their business profits, the number of such bad acts committed under their watch would diminish exponentially.

The punishment doesn't even have to be jail time.... maybe make them forfeit all profits/income/revenue for a set period of time.

In our society, we differentiate between negligence and criminal intent. Clearly, nobody is saying that the Aquilinis intended to cause death, otherwise they would have been charged criminally. Our society makes this distinction. If you don't understand this distinction, I'm not going to bother explaining this to you.

Even in the negligence context, our laws focus on control and supervision. In some countries, if Aquilini hired a licensed contractor to renovate a place and that contractor hired a subcontractor who hired unlicensed black market workers and something bad happens, the victims/victim's family can sue the Aquilinis and can win. But in North America, such as in this case in question, if Aquilini hired a licensed contractor to renovate a place and that contractor in turn hired a subcontractor to perform the job, it would be improbable that most of the fault would be placed on the Aquilinis.

 

[Hit the post]

The problem with that idea is that business people will do their best to separate themselves from the business entities, to avoid themselves or the business taking that punishment.

More like Don Aquaman will only give instructions to his Underboss. And the Underboss only to the Capos. And the Capos to the soldiers/made men. This creates a buffer.

 

[VanJack]

In our society, we differentiate between negligence and criminal intent. Clearly, nobody is saying that the Aquilinis intended to cause death, otherwise they would have been charged criminally. Our society makes this distinction. If you don't understand this distinction, I'm not going to bother explaining this to you.

Even in the negligence context, our laws focus on control and supervision. In some countries, if Aquilini hired a licensed contractor to renovate a place and that contractor hired a subcontractor who hired unlicensed black market workers and something bad happens, the victims/victim's family can sue the Aquilinis and can win. But in North America, such as in this case in question, if Aquilini hired a licensed contractor to renovate a place and that contractor in turn hired a subcontractor to perform the job, it would be improbable that most of the fault would be placed on the Aquilinis.

You need to go back and re-read Pavel96's post #21 which lists just a few of the court cases involving the Aquilini's and ex-wives, former employees, contractors and suppliers etc. The links are all posted for easy reference.

And he doesn't even mention the biggest lawsuit of all, when the Aquilini's did an end run around his business partner Tom Gaglardi to scoop the Canucks in the first place, which ended in a messy court action.

So we're splitting hairs here about who was at fault for a trailer burning to the ground and claiming the lives of a couple of precious children. The Aquilini's were the landlords and should have ensured the dwelling was habitable and safe. But Vancouverites know only too well from the old days that when you make your fortunate as slum landlords, old habits are hard to break.

 

[F A N]

You need to go back and re-read Pavel96's post #21 which lists just a few of the court cases involving the Aquilini's and ex-wives, former employees, contractors and suppliers etc. The links are all posted for easy reference.

And he doesn't even mention the biggest lawsuit of all, when the Aquilini's did an end run around his business partner Tom Gaglardi to scoop the Canucks in the first place, which ended in a messy court action.

So we're splitting hairs here about who was at fault for a trailer burning to the ground and claiming the lives of a couple of precious children. The Aquilini's were the landlords and should have ensured the dwelling was habitable and safe. But Vancouverites know only too well from the old days that when you make your fortunate as slum landlords, old habits are hard to break.

And how does this relate to the point I was making/responding to?

In terms of the "biggest lawsuit of all," my understanding is that the Aquilinis won at trial and on appeal. It's case closed.

And no we are not "splitting hairs" here. You need to go back and re-read some of the posts talking about a lack of information here. There's negligence and then there's criminal negligence.

 

[I in the Eye]

Not being a criminal is the bare minimum requirement for me not to consider a NHL player, GM, executive or owner a douchebag. not having lawsuits drawn to them like a magnet is probably my next in line requirement. From there, ample opportunity to show not a douchebag by doing non-douchbag-type things. If not a complete bag of douche, I think there is evidence to suggest that he has at least some douche inside of him.

 

[Javaman]

In our society, we differentiate between negligence and criminal intent. Clearly, nobody is saying that the Aquilinis intended to cause death, otherwise they would have been charged criminally. Our society makes this distinction. If you don't understand this distinction, I'm not going to bother explaining this to you.

Even in the negligence context, our laws focus on control and supervision. In some countries, if Aquilini hired a licensed contractor to renovate a place and that contractor hired a subcontractor who hired unlicensed black market workers and something bad happens, the victims/victim's family can sue the Aquilinis and can win. But in North America, such as in this case in question, if Aquilini hired a licensed contractor to renovate a place and that contractor in turn hired a subcontractor to perform the job, it would be improbable that most of the fault would be placed on the Aquilinis.

It shouldn't be so hard and convoluted to justify the decisions of billionaires that result in the entirely preventable deaths of children.

But you keep doing you.

 

[F A N]

It shouldn't be so hard and convoluted to justify the decisions of billionaires that result in the entirely preventable deaths of children.

But you keep doing you.

I'm not doing anything. I've explained to you how in other societies/legal systems, you can sue all the way to the top if one subcontractor down the chain hires some unlicensed worker whose work ultimately led to an accident. It doesn't work that way here so right now the Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

You can keep doing you as well. Or you can do something and go protest in front of the Aquilinis or post an Op-Ed.

 

[Javaman]

I'm not doing anything. I've explained to you how in other societies/legal systems, you can sue all the way to the top if one subcontractor down the chain hires some unlicensed worker whose work ultimately led to an accident. It doesn't work that way here so right now the Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

You can keep doing you as well. Or you can do something and go protest in front of the Aquilinis or post an Op-Ed.

You can accept things as they are. Or you can push to make things better.

It seems like you've made your choice clear.

I'd only add that there is no real reason to make that choice. Things could be different if we really wanted.

 

[The Vasili Jerry]

Thanks pal. Now I have to think of some way to get rid of that mental image out of my brain. ****Hit the Post go watches some clips on pornhub****

Are you still master of your domain?

 

[F A N]

You can accept things as they are. Or you can push to make things better.

It seems like you've made your choice clear.

I'd only add that there is no real reason to make that choice. Things could be different if we really wanted.

Yes. Please push to make things better. Please help make a difference. I mentally support you in doing so. If you pen a letter or petition requesting Aquilinis change their ways and need signatures I'll think about signing. If you post an Op-Ed on the Province or something I'll give it a like. If there is an article of you protesting in front of Aquilinis' office I'll think about posting something supportive. But please don't just try to guilt shame posters here for accepting things as they are. That doesn't help change anything.

Just let us know what you're going to do about it and what you have done about it. I'm sure there are others here who will think about lending you support as well.

 

[Javaman]

Yes. Please push to make things better. Please help make a difference. I mentally support you in doing so. If you pen a letter or petition requesting Aquilinis change their ways and need signatures I'll think about signing. If you post an Op-Ed on the Province or something I'll give it a like. If there is an article of you protesting in front of Aquilinis' office I'll think about posting something supportive. But please don't just try to guilt shame posters here for accepting things as they are. That doesn't help change anything.

Just let us know what you're going to do about it. I'm sure there are others here who will think about lending you support as well.

You misunderstood my point.

I see the preventable deaths of children as the point to work backwards from... we should start with their deaths and from there identify ways to ensure it never happens again, even if those ways reduce the profit margin of billionaires.

You seem to be coming from the opposite position, that we first need to show that the deaths of children are unnecessary and unavoidable before we start impinging upon the profit margins of billionaires.

I just can't get behind that.

This whole business about penning letters, signing petitions, writing op-eds etc is a diversion. If you accept things the way they are, you are basically saying your are okay if children die if enough regulations are put in place to shield those who profit the most.

Accepting things as they are is arguably the biggest impediment to making a change.

 

[F A N]

You misunderstood my point.

I probably did as you were quoting me but not addressing the points I was making.

I see the preventable deaths of children as the point to work backwards from... we should start with their deaths and from there identify ways to ensure it never happens again, even if those ways reduce the profit margin of billionaires.

And I wholeheartedly support that. But my understanding is that in WA, unlike some other states, regulations are in place and permits are required for various alterations and electrical work (much like here). Thinking of ways to improve the process is certainly a valid discussion. My point is that our legal system distinguishes between criminal conduct and negligence even if it's gross negligence. It shouldn't have anything to do with whether someone is a billionaire or not.

You seem to be coming from the opposite position, that we first need to show that the deaths of children are unnecessary and unavoidable before we start impinging upon the profit margins of billionaires.

I just can't get behind that.

I said nothing of the kind. Stop making stuff up to fit your narrative.

This whole business about penning letters, signing petitions, writing op-eds etc is a diversion. If you accept things the way they are, you are basically saying your are okay if children die if enough regulations are put in place to shield those who profit the most.

Accepting things as they are is arguably the biggest impediment to making a change.

Ok. So please tell me what you plan to do or are doing that is the opposite of "accepting things the way they are?" Ranting about it in a hockey forum and trying to shame other posters for your perceived "accepting things as they are" is not effecting change. How are you effecting change?

 

[RandV]

Ok. So please tell me what you plan to do or are doing that is the opposite of "accepting things the way they are?" Ranting about it in a hockey forum and trying to shame other posters for your perceived "accepting things as they are" is not effecting change. How are you effecting change?

Well first we seize the means of production...

 

[Fulham]

of all the billionaire real estate family's that could of bought us, Gaglardi, Sander, Beedie, Bosa we got the worst one. Nobody has a worse reputation.

 

[F A N]

of all the billionaire real estate family's that could of bought us, Gaglardi, Sander, Beedie, Bosa we got the worst one. Nobody has a worse reputation.

Blame John McCaw.

 

[pgj98m3]

Well first we seize the means of production...

I thought it was "First thing we do, let's kill the lawyers"

 

[F A N]

I thought it was "First thing we do, let's kill the lawyers"

Nah. It will be the scholars and dissenting journalists that go first.

 

[RandV]

Wait are we talking about communism, fascism, or Shakespeare here? I just wanted to take over Aquilini's blueberry farms!

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

aquilinis in legal troubles again

Aquilini Investment Group ordered to pay US$600,000 for contract breach

The Aquilini Group admitted that it was liable for the breach of contract, and the only issue at trial was the amount of damages to be awarded.

...

In a ruling posted on the court’s website Wednesday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Murray sided with Six Factor.

“What is material is that Six Factor is not seeking recovery of its costs, it is seeking only the payment due by Aquilini under the contract,” said the judge.

“I do not accept Aquilini’s argument that the contract price Six Factor expected to receive under the contract could amount to overcompensation.”

The judge awarded US$607,000, representing the contract amount plus PST and GST and court-ordered interest, in addition to the cost of the additional licences and the costs of technical and training deployment.

 

[VanJack]

The third paragraph says it all: "The Aquilini Group admitted that it was liable for the breach of contract, and the only issue at trial was the amount of damages to be awarded".

The message: "Sure we stiffed the 'little guy' but maybe the judge will cut us a break and we won't have to pay as much as it would have cost to do the right thing in the first place."

And this latest black-eye for the owners actually had a Canucks connection. Apparently the company suing had provided wireless and internet services to the executive suites at Rogers Arena.

Classy bunch, these Canuck owners.

 

[F A N]

aquilinis in legal troubles again

Aquilini Investment Group ordered to pay US$600,000 for contract breach

The Aquilini Group admitted that it was liable for the breach of contract, and the only issue at trial was the amount of damages to be awarded.

...

In a ruling posted on the court’s website Wednesday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Murray sided with Six Factor.

“What is material is that Six Factor is not seeking recovery of its costs, it is seeking only the payment due by Aquilini under the contract,” said the judge.

“I do not accept Aquilini’s argument that the contract price Six Factor expected to receive under the contract could amount to overcompensation.”

The judge awarded US$607,000, representing the contract amount plus PST and GST and court-ordered interest, in addition to the cost of the additional licences and the costs of technical and training deployment.

The third paragraph says it all: "The Aquilini Group admitted that it was liable for the breach of contract, and the only issue at trial was the amount of damages to be awarded".

The message: "Sure we stiffed the 'little guy' but maybe the judge will cut us a break and we won't have to pay as much as it would have cost to do the right thing in the first place."

And this latest black-eye for the owners actually had a Canucks connection. Apparently the company suing had provided wireless and internet services to the executive suites at Rogers Arena.

Classy bunch, these Canuck owners.

I said before that the Aquilinis have a reputation for being cheap (as in they will leave others with the bill).

With that said, it's not a crime to breach a contract. It happens all the time and there's nothing wrong with it.

From a layman's perspective, in normal circumstances the Aquilini didn't present an unreasonable argument. Aquilinis are basically saying okay I know we have a contract but I don't want your products and services anymore. I'll pay you what you would have made had we followed through with the contract. Except that in Six Factors case they have already incurred a cost to purchasing the licenses and they can't turn around to resell so if they just got what they would have made under the contract they would have lost money.

 

[Hit the post]

Lol...so they share the main trait of Bone Spurs. Walk away from vendors/stiffing then of bills. Can’t buy class (and if they could, they’d just not end up paying the invoice anyhow). Good thing for NHL players, their contracts are iron clad.

 

[VanJack]

I said before that the Aquilinis have a reputation for being cheap (as in they will leave others with the bill).

With that said, it's not a crime to breach a contract. It happens all the time and there's nothing wrong with it.

From a layman's perspective, in normal circumstances the Aquilini didn't present an unreasonable argument. Aquilinis are basically saying okay I know we have a contract but I don't want your products and services anymore. I'll pay you what you would have made had we followed through with the contract. Except that in Six Factors case they have already incurred a cost to purchasing the licenses and they can't turn around to resell so if they just got what they would have made under the contract they would have lost money.

All this may be true, but I think you might be missing the 'bigger picture". For a smaller entrepreneur, suing a conglomerate like the Aquilini Group is basically a 'last resort'. Rest assured that just about every avenue would have been pursued by accountants and lawyers to settle this relatively small debt (at last for the Aquilini's) before it ever hit the courts or the media. Because of course once the small guy actually sues, he's basically conceding that he'll never work for the Canucks or the Aquilini's again.

But that's history of these Canuck owners. You could settle out of goodwill, or use a bunch of high-priced lawyers, to put your foot on the guy's throat and keep pressing.

 

[egelband]

I’m feeling a little less bad about being a Mets fan at the moment. These guys make the Wilpons look OK.

in all seriousness, I feel for you. Good luck.

 

[F A N]

All this may be true, but I think you might be missing the 'bigger picture". For a smaller entrepreneur, suing a conglomerate like the Aquilini Group is basically a 'last resort'. Rest assured that just about every avenue would have been pursued by accountants and lawyers to settle this relatively small debt (at last for the Aquilini's) before it ever hit the courts or the media. Because of course once the small guy actually sues, he's basically conceding that he'll never work for the Canucks or the Aquilini's again.

But that's history of these Canuck owners. You could settle out of goodwill, or use a bunch of high-priced lawyers, to put your foot on the guy's throat and keep pressing.

I think you're missing the "legal picture." First of all, this was a summary trial and a simple case. Pursuing "every avenue" is either not necessary or doesn't take much time. Second of all, it's not like Six Factors is a mom and pop store where they lucked out on a big contract and was risking everything to do this deal and biting more than they can chew. They market themselves as Google's Leading Cloud Partner in Western Canada. That deal was worth $600K US and it doesn't look like they were paid up front.