[strogonoff]

If a shipping provider loses shipment and refuses to respect the insurance agreement, it sounds like they should be sued for damages. The damages are much more than the cost of the shipment, as the loss itself also undermines operations and causes a lot of financial downside.

[ThePowerOfFuet]

Lawyers are not free, and the team already has very few CPU cycles to spare.

[strogonoff]

In some jurisdictions, the losing side will have to cover the cost. In some jurisdictions there are also small claims courts, which do not need legal representation.

It’s clear that it caused financial distress whereas as happy paying customer I want SourceHut to continue existing.

[arp242]

The reality is that actually getting your rights is often an enormous hassle, in terms of time, money, and/or stress.

If you're BigCorp™® with a Lawyer Department then that's not really a problem: you just send it off to the lawyers and continue with your day. If you're a private individual and/or small business: it very quickly becomes a trade-off.

So imagine SourceHut sues. And they win. And losing shipping company has to pay all of sourcehut's fees. There is a very real non-zero chance they will just say "lol nope, fuck you". And then what? Basically nothing you can do about it. Even in domestic cases this is true, international cases even more so.

In reality a lot of the world runs on goodwill and voluntary adherence to the rules, with not all that much little stopping bad actors from abusing things.

[strogonoff]

I part agree, but that goodwill and adherence also exist thanks to people who are willing to exercise their rights. A shipping company that suddenly can’t operate in a profitable country because they are in violation of court order will lose a lot of money; chances are, they like money.

[arp242]

Yes, I agree; see e.g Alan Bates for a famous example. But I don't think anyone could be faulted for not being Alan Bates and just moving on with their life.