If suing for property damage can I claim for my time spent to replace those items? I am claiming compensation for property damage due to negligence. I will simply using the money to replace the damaged items. Can I also claim for my reasonable time in replacing the items? For example, one hour per item to travel to the appropriate shop, find a suitable replacement, buy it and take it home. If so, at what rate should I charge for my time? Would my hourly salary rate be appropriate?
You certainly can claim whatever you want. Will you be granted it though? Time is money indeed, and replacing the damaged items requires some time not just items themselves. The question is how much time and at what rate? Your duty will be to mitigate the damages and so to minimise the time and its cost. Will your normal hourly rate be applicable? Only if you have to use your actual work time and miss out on earning for those hours. It will probably be unreasonable to use work time in the first place, let alone that you may not necessarily miss out any earnings in case it's a salaried job and your boss is fine to just let you go for a few hours to sort out personal issues. If the time you use for replacement is evenings/weekends then you would need to quantify how much you miss out on not doing what you would do otherwise.
I assume this is a used car, and that your sales agreement doesn't have a 'time is of the essence' clause that specifies a specific deadline. In that case, they will have 'reasonable time' to perform the work. Unfortunately, there is no legal definition of what would be reasonable (the time necessary to repair a locomotive is much longer than the time needed to repair a torn screen door). Rather, the question would be, given the nature of the time, what you be typical, what would be surprising or shockingly long, and what extenuating factors are there. If you happen to know a lot of mechanics, you can get a ballpark figure. Let's say that it has been 3 weeks, then that is probably unreasonably long, so you could sue them for breach of contract. If it has less than a week, it's not so clear. You might simply ask then when they will get the problem fixed.
Possibly I am Australian so I am not familiar with Albertan labour law but I have done a little research and the underlying common law principles are similar. I will assume that you are covered by Albertan law and not the Canada Labour Code. The next part of the answer is based on A Guide to Rights and Responsibilities in Alberta Workplaces. First, if you lost it they would need to ask you to pay for it, they could not deduct it from your pay without a garnishee order (p. 10). Second, if the device is safety equipment, and it is certainly arguable that it is, then it is the employee's responsibility to use it and the employer's responsibility to keep it in safe working order; this would include replacing it if it were lost (p. 12). The common law position depends on a) the contract and b) if any negligence were involved. Contract What does your current employment contract say about your use of the employer's equipment generally and this item in particular? If it says something then, unless it is an illegal term, that is what happens. If it is silent, then it turns on the particular circumstances. Also, a contract cannot be changed unilaterally, if they are trying to introduce a new term then you have to agree to it; remembering that there may be consequences to taking a stand against your employer, you should say that you do not agree - this removes the risk that the employer could argue that there was tacit agreement. Negligence In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: had a duty to the plaintiff, as an employee this is virtually a given; breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), this would depend on the circumstances of the loss or damage. You have to take reasonable care of the equipment - this is not a subjective standard, you need to do everything that a person in your position can do to protect the equipment from loss or damage; the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of the harm to the plaintiff. This has to do with the "proximity" of the harm, if for example the device needed a battery change and you took it to a technician who damaged the item in changing the battery then your actions are not proximate to the loss; and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. Well, if it is lost or damaged this is pretty unarguable. So, if you take reasonable care of the device and, notwithstanding, it is lost or damaged then you would not be liable for negligence ... probably. Talk to your union rep; this is exactly the sort of stuff that they are there to sort out.
It is cl;early not legal to charge for an optional warranty without ever having gotten approval for it. The customer could simply ask for a refund on teh ground that this was an error, and take it to small claims if that was refused. I am sure it is legal to offer such an optional warranty and point out its (alleged) benefits. I do not know if consumer law forbids making this pitch multiple times in the same selling encounter.
At this point, there is little legal recourse. Once the delay becomes "unreasonable", you might be able to sue them and get some compensation. I do not know what would constitute an "unreasonable" delay in your circumstances and I don't doubt that a month seems unreasonable. You have explained the reasons for the delay, so it's not like they are waiting around for no reason. They are not required to hire more agents to process the claim; unfortunately, they are not legally required to act in a fashion that customers like (i.e. aggressively work to solve the problem). It does sound like there is a customer-service problem, which is what reviews and the BBB are about. You can of course be on the phone with the mechanic and the insurance agency, and if things get severe you can file a complaint with the state insurance commissioner.
If this is a public library in England or Wales, then they are allowed to charge for lost or damaged items, at their discretion, even though there is a general duty for libraries to make their normal lending services available free of charge. The Library Charges (England and Wales) Regulations 1991, a statutory instrument made under section 8 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 of says this in regulation 3(2)(e): A relevant authority may make a charge [...] in respect of library apparatus, library material and any other equipment or thing used in providing the library service which is lost, damaged or destroyed by, or whilst on loan to, the person paying the charge. Similarly, they can charge for late return of items, and for various special services. &quot;Library material&quot; includes &quot;words, figures, images, sounds or data recorded in or on any medium&quot;, which certainly covers books - even picture books. The library has broad discretion as to the amount and terms of any charge, but the replacement cost of the lost item is a typical starting point. Whether it was Bob's fault that he dropped the book in the river is irrelevant. He is on the hook for the charge. Potentially, he could claim against somebody else if they had damaged the book and thus caused him to suffer a financial loss, but that does not affect the fact that Bob has to pay the library. While other libraries could make this part of their contractual terms for using the service, this specific regulatory provision is necessary because the default position for public libraries is that they cannot charge any fees to local residents for borrowing books; this aspect of their operations is a matter of public law, as opposed to a contract between the library and any given local resident.
Following the guidance of the police In summary: If the item is hazardous or dangerous you should report it to the police using the emergency number. If the item is non-hazardous and found in a private place, hand it to the owner of the premises - it's their responsibility to attempt to find the owner and the property becomes theirs if they can't. If the item is non-hazardous and found on public transport, hand it to the operator - they have their own by-laws about lost property. If the item is non-hazardous and found in a public place, if it has a serial number, hand it to the police - they may be able to trace the owner if it is a government document, hand it to the issuer if it is of low value, make reasonable efforts to find the owner &quot;these could include asking people nearby or in offices or shops. You could also consider leaving a note with your details. If you can't find the owner there's nothing more we can do and you should dispose of the item.&quot; if it is of high value, make reasonable efforts to find the owner and if you can't hand it to the police.
General the measure of property damages in an automobile accident lawsuit in the United States is the minimum amount of money necessary to restore the vehicle to its pre-accident state, and/or the diminution of fair market value of the vehicle due to the accident that repairs can't fully remedy in a reasonable fashion. Beyond that very general statement, the cases get decided on a case by case basis after consideration of all of the relevant facts related to damages. There are legitimate arguments either way regarding what is reasonably necessary to repair the vehicle to its pre-accident state in this situation. Generally speaking, if there is a lawsuit, neither side will get their attorney fees in the United States, so they both have to decide how much they are willing to fight over a modest dollar amount dispute. A $950 disagreement would be eaten up in two to four hours of lawyer time, so that colors the analysis. To some extent it ends up being a game of chicken - who is most credibly going to continue to fight knowing that taking a legal battle to the full extent it could be taken would be mutually destructive.