[thom4782]

I don't know if its a California law or a law anywhere else.

t's pretty simple really: the goal of awarding damages is to put the harmed party back in the same position - not a better position - they were in before the damage occurred. For example, it the shop destroyed a customer's top worth $500, then it owes the $500 either in a replacement top worth $500 or in money. The shop's not obligated to pay more then $500.

Do believe this? Well, why do you think insurance companies can replace damaged parts with used parts and avoid having to install new parts. It because used parts can restore the damaged property to is value. If the courts typically awarded the price of new parts in settling claims, this issue would have been litigated long ago in the favor of new parts for the owner. I'm pretty sure it hasn't worked out that way. The only way I see it turning out otherwise is if the shop were gross negligent and that would be very difficult to prove when glued-in glass is involved.