Of all the luck

OK, here's a ggod question. Does the person who bought the stuff have any moreal obligation to the person who sold it? Legally, the answer is obviously no, but I'm asking the question from a moral standpoint.

I had a friend who was into R/C aircraft. One day, someone had been garage sale-ing and bought him a whole box of junk. Well, you guessed it... the "junk" contained a very rare R/C engine that was worth several hundred dollars. I'll not tell you how that story ended so as to not influence your answers.

I know that this is not trains related, but it deals with a trains subject. What say you???

dlm

You buy someone a gift

and the morality of the act is determined by the value of the gift???

I ask, what's your point?

Paul

I agree with Paul. Unless the seller was not an adult or otherwise not a competent adult, then there's neither a legal, moral nor ethical issue. Watch "antiques roadshow" and you see it many times. Person buys an object at a flea market or even at an antique store for $20 and it ends up being worth hundreds or even thousands. By the same token, many also buy something for $100 only to find it has next to no value. It goes both ways.

Cheers, Bill S.

Your "legal" answer is flat wrong.

Your moral compass works well though.

Its the old contract law question of unilateral mistake versus bilateral or multilateral mistake, or the "Case of the Pregnant Cow", a famous Canadian ( I think Ontario) case back in the last century which is always taught in law schools as explaining these issues. Walker vs. Somebody, or Somebody vs Walker..

In the cow case, Seller had a cow which, though of wonderful breeding and lineage, was thought to be barren and unable to calve.

Seller wanted to sell cow. Buyer, a neighbor, appeared and wanted to buy cow for beef (Canadian beef --- uuugh! Didn't they know about mad cow disease?))

Buyer and seller both believed that cow was barren. Buyer sold and seller bought for a cheap price as a meat animal, not as breeding stock.

Amazingly, cow was pregnant when sold, and Buyer discovered same before slaughtering. Buyer used cow in breeding herd.

Seller sued for return of cow on basis of mutual mistake.

Seller won, and got cow back, IIRC, because both parties were mistaken about essential element of the contract, i.e. was cow capable of calving. . Taxing my memory here a bit because its been 35 years since the textbook cases in contracts class, but the issue is were both parties mistaken as to the nature of the item(s) contracted to be sold, or was only one party mistaken.

If both parties were mistaken, then there is no "meeting of the minds", no contract, and the seller gets all his stuff back and the buyer gets his money back.

If only one party was mistaken, tough, as it was that party's fault to not have learned as much as the other party.

Why does it not surprise me that in English, Canadian and US contract law, having more knowledge than the other party and putting something over on the other party will be rewarded, yet if both parties are too ignorant to know what they are doing, the courts will grant relief. Reward trickery, punish universal ignorance.

If you think the unilateral mistake / bilateral mistake and the "Pregnant Cow" case are just for amusement, I want to sell you a car, used or new.

Isn't this the kind of thing that leads to contracts that do not elaborate, or nullify, apriori understandings? Phrases such as, "as is".

I Joe sell to Fred one cow as is for $100.

Paul

Well, implied in the scenerio was, it was the sellers to sell. The seller was not legally incompetent to sell their property.

Is the recipient of the gift obligated in some way to refuse the gift based on it's value? Without regard for the recipients awareness of the value.

Let's say the "junk" was purchased for $10 and let's say it's listed in one, or more, respectable places as being worth $1M (fair market value), who may owe taxes on what??? *8->>

Paul

back in the last century which is always taught in law schools as explaining these issues. Walker vs. Somebody, or Somebody vs

SHERWOOD v. WALKER Supreme Court of Michigan, 1887

Now, for double or nothing, What was the cow's name?

RWBooneSr

Yes, they did, it was imported from Texas as it was getting no publicity there.

Michigan? We sold Michigan to the USA in 1892 as it was of no value to Canada. It is still of no value to anyone except the organized crime lords in Detroit. What was his name? Gordon Barry or something?

"Rose 2d of Aberlone"

Ain't Google great?

By this logic (law?) I guess if the buyer was ever asked they would state I knew I was ripping off the seller all along, and legally own the (whatever). Am I correct here?

Thats my point about used / new cars. I have a used car to sell you.

Interesting evidentiary issues in mutual mistake cases.

Those evidentiary issues can give some folks who are parties in that kind of case a big incentive to "confess" that they are "crooks", i.e. that they as seller knew about the defects in the widget at all times.

Of course doing so may let the buyer make out a fraud case as opposed to a breach of contract case..

Oddly enough, honesty is STILL the best policy.

Which is why I originally complimented Dan Merkel on the way his moral compass works.

Jim McLaughlin

Please don't just hit the reply key. Remove the obvious from the address to reply.

In Jewish law/custom, the money should go to the person who brought the trains to the store.

The example we were presented with was: A man bought a car at a police auction. The car was confuscated during a drug raid. The car was throughly inspected by the police and then released for sale. When the man brought it to his friend for service, the friend found $25,000 in the car and called the police. The man sued to have the money returned to him.

In Jewish law the money should go back to the police.

Dan Merkel wrote:

have the money returned to him.< This is a little more complicated that the simple situation we were discussing. I sure in this case the police "claimed it was drug money and therefore theirs". The owner probably claimed it was lost money (he "found" it) and he gets it after so many days (30, 60, 90---I got a bike that way once). If the car had not drug raid background it would easily have been treated as lost money. It would even get more complicated because the new owner of the car didn't really find it, the service man did! You didn't say who sued!

True. It was the owner who sued. There is no mention of what happened to the friendship.

This statement cannot be true if this

is true AND the money was not supposed to go with the car.

If the police "throughly inspected" the car then the money was placed there later (Yes your honor I think of my car as a piggy bank) OR the police intended for the money to go with the car.

At least that would be my argument to the court.

AND I'd expect the IRS to show up demanding a cut of the $25K. Of course you could argue that the value of the $25K is only what you paid for the car and the car was free since it was only the wrapping for the monetary gift ... probably wouldn't work, but you could try it.

Paul

Some friend!

Yeah, that was my thought when the Rabbi told gave us the exercise.