Poll

What would this guy have owed me?

The original price I paid
7 (9.3%)
The replacement cost only (if lower)
11 (14.7%)
The full replacement cost (if higher)
57 (76%)

Total Members Voted: 75

Author Topic: The correct reimbursement for something lost or broken  (Read 2910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hmmmmm

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6252
Re: The correct reimbursement for something lost or broken
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2013, 09:28:49 PM »
He owes you the item, not the cost of the item. So it is up to him to find a replacement set and present them. If it is something that can no longer be purchased even on a resale market, then he should reimburse the cost you paid.

aussie_chick

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 324
Re: The correct reimbursement for something lost or broken
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2013, 12:06:46 AM »
I agree with other posters who said he owes the item. I don't think it matters if he has to pay more or less than the original owner paid as long as the item comes back.

I don't think I agree with replacing the item with a second hand item. The only exception to this I think would be if a brand new item was not available. But if new can be found, then the person who lost/broke/didn't return the item should be responsible for getting a new one.

If the item is not available at all, anywhere, under any circumstances, then the cost would come into it for me. I think it has to because otherwise the owner is out of pocket / without their item, with no reimbursement for it at all.

I was going to say I think there are variances to this. e.g lending someone an item that cost $50 originally to the owner but has appreciated in value since then and is now worth or costs $200. But I can't really imagine lending someone something like that in the first place.

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1818
Re: The correct reimbursement for something lost or broken
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2013, 01:39:42 AM »
He owes you the item.

If you paid 10 and it now costs 20, he buys you one for 20 and doesn't get to complain about the extra cost.

Conversely, if you paid 20 for it and the market price is now 10, you don't get to say 'but I spent 20 on this and he only spent 10 so he still owes me 10'.

As long as you get the item back in equivalent condition, it's all good.

cwm

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2427
Re: The correct reimbursement for something lost or broken
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2013, 11:21:22 AM »
The only time for me that money enters into it for lost/broken items is when you can't get a replacement. For example, if you have a book that you bought and I borrowed it and broke it somehow, I have to replace that book. If, for whatever reason, that's not feasible, we have to work together to find a solution. If, like a PP said, the book originally cost you $10 and it turned into the next $10,000 deal to have an exact copy, that's probably not going to happen. On the other hand, I might be able to find a copy of a later printing for a reasonable price. You won't be getting the exact item back (first edition, limited print run, other limiting factor) but you will still have a copy of the book.

Movies are a different thing, though. If I lent out a limited edition DVD, I would expect a limited edition DVD back. The only way that a different edition would be acceptable is if it had all the features of the DVD I had lent. One of sis's friends was talking to her, had lent out the 2-disc extended edition of one of the Lord of the Rings movies and was returned a basic version. Apparently somehow the discs had broken, and the person borrowing them thought that this was acceptable to buy and return, but in that case the lender is in a worse position than he was before.

It's not about replacing the exact item 100%, nor is it about the replacement cost. It's about making the lender whole, and putting them in the position they were in before they lent something out.

Mollie

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: The correct reimbursement for something lost or broken
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2013, 12:24:39 AM »
I have a question along these lines that's been nagging at me. I borrowed a matched set of books from a friend, and happened to lose one. I went and brought a new copy of the one that I lost, but it wasn't part of the match the other 3 books. Should I have kept looking for the book on ebay until I found the matching one? She was okay with it, but after more then two years, I still feel vaguely arkward about it.

sweetonsno

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1357
Re: The correct reimbursement for something lost or broken
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2013, 12:39:18 AM »
I have a question along these lines that's been nagging at me. I borrowed a matched set of books from a friend, and happened to lose one. I went and brought a new copy of the one that I lost, but it wasn't part of the match the other 3 books. Should I have kept looking for the book on ebay until I found the matching one? She was okay with it, but after more then two years, I still feel vaguely arkward about it.

I think if she was okay with it, you're in the clear. I personally am a bit particular about things like that. I would have wanted a matching one.

sweetonsno

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1357
Re: The correct reimbursement for something lost or broken
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2013, 12:51:57 AM »
To answer the original question, the poll doesn't actually have my response, which has already come up with previous posters: you are entitled to the item that you lost (well, an equivalent replacement). The amount of money you paid doesn't factor into it.

If someone got an iGizmo for free because they won it, or it was a gift, they aren't out of luck if someone else knocks it into the punch bowl. Judy has to get them a new one if she can't get the old one fixed.

If someone got hoodwinked into paying twice as much for the same iGizmo because of an unscrupulous salesperson, well, that's unfortunate for them. It isn't up to the friend who sat on the iGizmo to reimburse them for their failure to shop around and find the best price. It's on him to get the iGizmo restored to its former glory by paying for repairs or to get another one (same model).

I really don't think that the owner of the item is entitled to money. They are entitled to the thing. Just as the replacer can't decide that a basic version is an acceptable replacement, the original owner isn't allowed to decide that he'd rather have several bottles of vodka than his Gizmo. If near-exact replacements are not available (it was a custom job or limited edition), then the two need to work together to find a suitable substitute.

Venus193

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 15804
  • Backstage passes are wonderful things!
Re: The correct reimbursement for something lost or broken
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2013, 07:21:50 AM »
I think we've covered it; thanks, everyone.