DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether This has come up all over the news reports within the last 24 hours. Given other news event I can see why it didn't get posted yesterday. A man named Justin Purcell in Arizona had his house burned down while he and his wife were away. The insurance would pay for the damages which is fine, but wont pay for the fire fighting services rendered. That's right, a private fire fighting company showed up and attempted to put the fire out. After it burned to the ground they sent a $20,000 bill to Mr. Purcell for 'services and equipment' rendered on the date. SOURCE In Business 101, if I do not ask for a service, but it is rendered to me, I am NOT forced to pay the bill. If the house was saved for the most part and could be repaired, that would be one thing. But burned to the ground? There is an expectation that what is being charged was fair and honest on a bill. They were not called up by the home owner, did not save the house on any level, but feel its within their right to charge the home owner for 'services rendered'. Would you pay this bill if you were in Mr. Purcell's shoes right now? With just what has been written on the thread before my post, I'd have to say that the for-profit Fire Department shouldn't hold their breath if it was me. There is no telling what the FD did, what expenses they bore, or what a realistic successful fight would have been. You claim that services were not rendered, but how do you know? What started the blaze may have had more to do with the final condition of the house than the services (or lack of services) rendered.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|