Calling all law aficionados, settle a debate.

[spikerS]

So, there is a debate I am currently involved in, revolving being made whole in a lawsuit or insurance settlement.

I will provide a scenario to give an idea what I am talking about.

Rage2 and I go to a garage sale, I find a rare piece of china. I pay a whopping $0.50 for it, but I buy it because it has a mark on the bottom, making it worth a heck of a lot more, like in the neighbourhood of $5000 more.

To celebrate, we return to Rage2's house with a 24 of beer, to which we both get hammered. I jump in a cab to go home, forgetting the piece of china on the kitchen counter.

After I leave, my buddy passes out on the couch, and his girlfriend comes home, and is pissed about Rage2 being passed out drunk. They get into a big fight, and she ends up grabbing the piece of china, and throws it at Rage2. He ducks, and unfortunately, the piece of china hits the wall and shatters, becoming worthless.

Once I find out, our friendship becomes ruined, as he refuses to pay my demand of $5000, as that is what the piece of china is worth.

there ends the scenario.

the debate is now, if I was to sue my friend, would a judge in a court of law, order my friend (assuming he lost) to pay me $0.50 or $5000? A court is to make a person whole from a loss, the debate then becomes about the value placed on an object of loss.

Is to be made whole to be reimbursed for what you paid for it, or for what the actual value is of the object?

***Note:All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.***

[Shlade]

Rage2's girlfriend is an angry bitch is what I get from that

Sorry no useful info

[rob the knob]

market value

[rob the knob]

qup

Originally posted by spikers
So, there is a debate I am currently involved in, revolving being made whole in a lawsuit or insurance settlement.

I will provide a scenario to give an idea what I am talking about.

Rage2 and I go to a garage sale, I find a rare piece of china. I pay a whopping $0.50 for it, but I buy it because it has a mark on the bottom, making it worth a heck of a lot more, like in the neighbourhood of $5000 more.

To celebrate, we return to Rage2's house with a 24 of beer, to which we both get hammered. I jump in a cab to go home, forgetting the piece of china on the kitchen counter.

After I leave, my buddy passes out on the couch, and his girlfriend comes home, and is pissed about Rage2 being passed out drunk. They get into a big fight, and she ends up grabbing the piece of china, and throws it at Rage2. He ducks, and unfortunately, the piece of china hits the wall and shatters, becoming worthless.

Once I find out, our friendship becomes ruined, as he refuses to pay my demand of $5000, as that is what the piece of china is worth.

there ends the scenario.

the debate is now, if I was to sue my friend, would a judge in a court of law, order my friend (assuming he lost) to pay me $0.50 or $5000? A court is to make a person whole from a loss, the debate then becomes about the value placed on an object of loss.

Is to be made whole to be reimbursed for what you paid for it, or for what the actual value is of the object?

***Note:All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.***

[roopi]

I know nothing about law but I would guess that you would have to have an appraisal showing the value of the China.

[blitz]

Originally posted by roopi
I know nothing about law but I would guess that you would have to have an appraisal showing the value of the China.

That's my read. You just paid $0.50 for it, and until it's appraised it's worth $0.50

If you broke it yourself, your house insurance sure as hell wouldn't pay out $5000 without an appraisal.

[revelations]

Small claims; youll have to prove that :

a) item was/is worth XXX$ on the market (appraisal)
b) item was broken by the defendant (witness)


The situation is the same if I was at your house and damaged your property, and then refused to pay.

OR

I found a rare painting at a garage sale which I loaned to a friend, who them wrecked it somehow.

[Weapon_R]

Replacement value

[Star1995]

You need to fix holes in the story before I can get to a judgment.

First, why would Rage lose a case that he wouldn't be involved in as a defendant? A witness maybe. The girl friend broke the dish not Rage.

If Rage did in fact smash the dish then he'd be an idiot to admit to a judge that he broke a dish valued at $5000. A simple, clean up the mess and deny that the dish was there, you took it home. On top of that like others have said, you need to prove the dish was worth $5000

So if you got it to a point of judgement (very unlikely) then you would be given the $5000. I say this on the condition that you actually made it to court, proved the value of the dish and proved that Rage broke the dish with negligence. I don't think this would see the light of day in court so you'd get nothing.

It wouldn't make it to court because:

Rage didn't break it
You have no proof of value
You have no witness as to who broke it
You didn't witness it being broke
You don't even have a record of ownership

I understand where you're going but we need to get there first before you can get a judgement. My first argument with you would be, prove you even owned a dish valued at $5000, give me a receipt, appraisal, a picture or something!

You have nothing so you get nothing. Not even $.50

[ExtraSlow]

Even if you could prove that Rage and/or his gal broke this item, I don't think they have a duty of care in this case. You negligently left this item at his home. It's not like he agreed to guard it.

IMO, he owes you nothing, and you should be forced to pay his court costs.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by rob the knob
market value

Originally posted by Weapon_R
Replacement value

pretty much my thoughts on it too.

But it is comforting to have the reassurance that Beyond still likes to go off tangent and can't read or answer the question being posed.

[euro_racer]

IMO it just shows the type of person you are and shows your character and morals as a man to end the friendship and sue your friend over this.

1- you only paid $0.50. Your life was not dramatically impacted by this loss, you are no worse off then the day before.
2- you were also drinking with him, it was both your ideas
3-he didn't break it, was out of his control

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by spikers

But it is comforting to have the reassurance that Beyond still likes to go off tangent and can't read or answer the question being posed.

other than 1 joke reply, everyone seems to be on the same point.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by spikers


the debate is now, if I was to sue my friend, would a judge in a court of law, order my friend (assuming he lost) to pay me $0.50 or $5000? A court is to make a person whole from a loss, the debate then becomes about the value placed on an object of loss.

Originally posted by Xtrema




other than 1 joke reply, everyone seems to be on the same point.

Because only 2 people are actually answering the question. The rest are trying to debate the preface, and ignore the question.

[variance]

You voluntarily left the item at his house and did not ask him to keep it safe, further, he did not accept responsibility for its safe keeping. Could i come to your house and leave a very fragile item on the counter where its prone to being knocked over, then claim damages when it does occur? Seems like a tough situation to hold him responsible.

EDIT: Okay I missed the "assuming he lost" part. If that's the case, then I think he would be ordered to pay you what you can prove it is worth.

[spikerS]

apparently you missed the question being debated too, and the part that said "assuming he lost"

I am rapidly loosing my faith in the education system.

[D'z Nutz]

The only garage sales rage2 goes to are ones where he's buying the ones attached to houses. Next time come up with a more plausible scenario.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by spikers

***Note:All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.***

Originally posted by D'z Nutz
The only garage sales rage2 goes to are ones where he's buying the ones attached to houses. Next time come up with a more plausible scenario.

I have no idea who you are talking about, but they sound baller!

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by spikers
apparently you missed the question being debated too, and the part that said "assuming he lost"

I am rapidly loosing my faith in the education system.

But that's a pretty long story that is begging for judgment. You can't rob people of that with just 3 words.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Xtrema


But that's a pretty long story that is begging for judgment. You can't rob people of that with just 3 words.

sure I can, and did. The scenario is to provide a loose example to preface the question. The scenario was never intended to be able to stand up to legal scrutiny.

The question was posed, with an assumption made that negates the need to debate the preface, yet most still want to.