> Here in the land of the free, it turns out a company only has to honor its contractual obligations for a little while.
Eceryone everywhere appears to hate statuses of limitations, but they exist for a reason, namely that after some time society needs to move on. It may be disappointing, or even cruel, for the victims, but we can't keep litigating the past forever.
Espescially so in the "land of the free" which is the land of lawyers and lawsuits.
> we can't keep litigating the past forever
It's worth pointing out this reasoning is usually considered self-evident. I've rarely seen anyone doing any kind of deepdive into a practical reason for this.
As a parent of young children it rarely makes sense to litigate anything that happened more than 10 minutes ago, so perhaps people extrapolate from there :-) I'd enjoy that deep dive, though.
At least between adults though, such statutes do appear to overwhelmingly protect the holders of power/wealth/etc. from relinquishing said power/wealth/etc. It's hard to see broad societal benefits of statutes that are diametrically opposed to the interests of victims in all common cases.
bambax · · focus · HN ↗
Eceryone everywhere appears to hate statuses of limitations, but they exist for a reason, namely that after some time society needs to move on. It may be disappointing, or even cruel, for the victims, but we can't keep litigating the past forever.
Espescially so in the "land of the free" which is the land of lawyers and lawsuits.
lucideer · · focus · HN ↗
It's worth pointing out this reasoning is usually considered self-evident. I've rarely seen anyone doing any kind of deepdive into a practical reason for this.
stdbrouw · · focus · HN ↗
lucideer · · focus · HN ↗
At least between adults though, such statutes do appear to overwhelmingly protect the holders of power/wealth/etc. from relinquishing said power/wealth/etc. It's hard to see broad societal benefits of statutes that are diametrically opposed to the interests of victims in all common cases.