Something else I wanted to throw out there (bad pun intended). While I know laws vary from one jurisdiction to another, I'm fairly sure that in many cases, especially property law, they're quite similar.
Around here, evictions have to abide by certain laws. Foremost among them is disposal of property. When a person or business is evicted, it's not just a free-for-all of "wow look at all that good stuff!" as some of you seem to believe. If remaining belongings or property are deemed to have value, they must be sold, usually at auction. Whatever funds are generated go to pay off the costs of eviction (bailiff charges here aren't cheap), the costs of moving and storing the items until sale, and the costs owed to a landlord, if any. If there's anything left after all that, it goes to the person evicted. So in this case, had the food been given away, the shop owners could have complained about their valuable goods being improperly disposed of. After all, if it wasn't valuable, why were people lined up waiting to get their piece of the pie? Whoever was responsible could have been charged with some crime, and been sued. Bailiffs could have been disciplined or fired for allowing it to happen.
So if you want to get all foamy at the mouth and gnash your teeth at someone, do it at the shop owners who knew -months- previously they would need to move, and chose to ignore this fact. Not at the bank that ended up giving them almost two extra months to get their act together.
Again, I can't say for sure that laws there are the same as here, but I bet they're close.
Bookmarks