EPTWhat would you do? - Page 2
| Blogs > MrBitter |
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
| ||
|
Azzur
Australia6250 Posts
On February 11 2012 12:37 sermokala wrote: Its not billys fault. its Johnny and tommy's fault. Its money that tommy put into Johnny property. thus he should be working out a deal to transfer ownership of said furnature to Johnny instead of billy. billy shouldn't be included in any discussions as hes just renting a property he in this case includes the new stuff. Johnny should offer to pay Tommy a very small amount for the stuff and harassing his new customer or tell him to get it himself. if he can do neither tell him that he can't have a choice in the mater as he isn't the renter anymore in any case Johnny can just be a total ass and just say that the stuff is his now and Tommy should stop talking to him or sue for the stuff back. I'm not familier in local laws on how that would go after. How can it remotely even be Johnny's fault??? Johnny doesn't want the furniture and Tommy should come and get it himself or stop complaining. How can you make someone buy something they don't want??? | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On February 11 2012 12:36 MrBitter wrote: Can Tommy argue verbal contract with Billy's brother? He can argue until he's blue in the face but he has no legal right for compensation. My prediction is he in fact will argue and eventually bitch and then eventually after being a hassle leave with his stuff. | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
Tommy is wrong. Also, you can't speak on behalf of someone else either and have that hold up in court. | ||
|
hacklebeast
United States5090 Posts
Billy's brother is stupid for negotiating for billy without his knowledge, and tommy is stupid for negotiating with a third party in the first place (of an object which he has questionable ownership). | ||
micronesia
United States24483 Posts
BTW I made a blog with the exact same title lol | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13647 Posts
On February 11 2012 12:41 Azzur wrote: How can it remotely even be Johnny's fault??? Johnny doesn't want the furniture and Tommy should come and get it himself or stop complaining. How can you make someone buy something they don't want??? After everything its johnny's place. hes the one that rented the place out again without getting whats inside of it sorted out on his end. billy shouldn't have to worry about buying whats in the place that hes renting. johnny should have had the situation sorted out when tommy left and have ended it there. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24483 Posts
On February 11 2012 13:03 sermokala wrote: After everything its johnny's place. hes the one that rented the place out again without getting whats inside of it sorted out on his end. billy shouldn't have to worry about buying whats in the place that hes renting. johnny should have had the situation sorted out when tommy left and have ended it there. From the sound of it it was already sorted out. The furniture became part of the apartment. Billy agreed to rent the place, knowing what the contents of it were. The fact that the landlord is possibly willing, Billy permitting, to allow the original tenant to even still retrieve the furniture isn't necessary. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13647 Posts
On February 11 2012 13:06 micronesia wrote: From the sound of it it was already sorted out. The furniture became part of the apartment. Billy agreed to rent the place, knowing what the contents of it were. The fact that the landlord is possibly willing, Billy permitting, to allow the original tenant to even still retrieve the furniture isn't necessary. I didn't see that. it got very confusing in there. | ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
Also unless Billy's bother was authorized to act as an agent, Billy has absolutely no responsibility to Tommy. If Billy's brother portrayed himself as an agent he may be legally obligated to pay, but Billy definitely doesn't But srsly call a lawyer and see where you stand legally before you do anything rash, not that you would. Edit: Yah this is from a business law course last year, go with what Mr. Black says and Tell Tommy to pick up his shit or leave it Anyhow I would call Tommy up and offer him like $50 bucks for all of it and if he doesn't take it he has to have it out within a week or its on the curb. | ||
|
Mr. Black
United States470 Posts
On February 11 2012 12:06 MrBitter wrote: Tommy rents a room from a Johnny. He furnishes the room, but one day has to move. For whatever reason, he's not able to bring his furniture with him, and leaves it all behind. Johnny doesn't mind this, as it basically means he has a furnished bedroom to offer to guests when they come by. A couple months pass. One day Billy asks Johnny if he can rent the room. Billy and Johnny agree to terms, and Billy moves in to Johnny's furnished guest room. A couple more months pass. Tommy comes to visit, and hangs out with Billy, Billy's brother (who is also in town), and Johnny for a few days. While he's in town, he talks to Billy's brother about selling his furniture to Billy. The brother seems agreeable to the prospect of Billy buying the furniture, but the subject is never actually brought up with Billy. Tommy leaves thinking he has sold his old stuff. A couple more months pass. One day Tommy contacts Billy, claiming that Billy owes him money for the furniture. Billy disagrees. Tommy claims that it isn't fair that Billy has been using his furniture for all this time, but Billy argues that the subject should have been broached when he moved in, and if not then, then certainly when Tommy was in town. Tommy gets mad and claims that if Billy won't pay up, then Billy's brother should. Billy still disagrees. Angrily, Tommy says "then you're not allowed to use my furniture anymore". Billy says "You're welcome to come get it any time." Tommy counters "It's my furniture and you can't use it. I'm never going to come get it, but if you don't pay me for it, you're not allowed to use it." Is one side right or wrong? Should Billy have to pay Tommy? Does Johnny have a responsibility to either side? What would you do if you were in either Billy's or Tommy's shoes? Discuss! A legal analysis from an actual, practicing lawyer. First, I assume we are in America. I can't speak to the laws of wherever it is that "Johnny" lives currently, likely somewhere over the pond. Ok, so, first -- does Johnny have any responsibility to Tommy? "Johnny doesn't mind this, as it basically means he has a furnished bedroom to offer to guests when they come by." Johnny actually does have a responsibility under the law of bailments. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailment This is a "mutual bailment" in that Tommy benefitted from being able to store his furniture and Johnny got to have a furnished room for guests. The responsibility that Johnny has to Tommy is that he must exercise ordinary, reasonable care to prevent the furniture from being harmed. In other words, Johnny cannot intentionally trash the stuff without Tommy's permission, or at the very least, without giving Tommy a reasonable opportunity to retrieve his items. Second, should Billy have to pay Tommy? "Tommy comes to visit, and hangs out with Billy, Billy's brother (who is also in town), and Johnny for a few days. While he's in town, he talks to Billy's brother about selling his furniture to Billy. The brother seems agreeable to the prospect of Billy buying the furniture, but the subject is never actually brought up with Billy. Tommy leaves thinking he has sold his old stuff." Billy almost certainly should not have to pay Tommy. However, there are circumstances consistent with the above facts in which Billy could have to pay Tommy. First, if Billy authorized his brother to negotiate on his behalf (for example if Billy hired his brother as his attorney or agent or even his furniture consultant)--then if Billy's brother made a deal, Billy needs to pay. Second, if Billy's actions would reasonably lead Tommy to believe that Billy's brother had the authority to bind Billy, then Billy would have to pay. For example, if Tommy said, "Hey Billy, you interested in buying my furniture?" and Billy said, "Ask my brother, he knows furniture and handles my furniture deals." This is the law of agency. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(law) Even if Billy's brother was authorized to make a deal that would bind Billy, do we have an enforceable contract? That depends on a few things: First, obviously there is no written, signed contract, or we would not have this problem. In the absence of a written contract, we have to prove an oral contract. The sale of goods (like furniture) is governed by article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Under the UCC, a contract can be any offer and acceptance and can be proven by mere conduct that demonstrates that a deal has been reached. So, IF Billy's brother was authorized to deal for Billy, WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID TO TOMMY is important in determining if there is an enforceable contract. UNLESS -- the sale price is over $500. Under the "Statute of Frauds" provision of the UCC, contracts for the sales of goods over $500 must be memorialized in writing. So, in order for Tommy to collect from Billy, he needs to be able to show 1) that Billy's brother had actual or apparent authority to make a deal on Billy's behalf, 2) that Tommy and Billy's brother actually reached a deal, and 3) that the deal was for less than $500. If Tommy was trying to hire me to take his case, I would tell him that it was a bad idea, but that I would be willing to represent him for $20,000.00 paid up front (this is how I handle refusing representation in bad cases -- because, who knows, maybe some fool will take me up on it some time). Can Tommy leave his property at Johnny's house (in Billy's room, no less) indefinitely and forbid Billy from using the property? No. Of course not. Assuming we have a reliable narrator, Tommy is being a fucking tool. First, when Billy moved in, Tommy's property stopped being beneficial to Johnny -- in legal terms, the bailment was no longer mutual, but rather gratuitous. When a bailment only benefits the property owner, the holder of the property only needs to refrain from GROSS NEGLIGENCE in preventing harm to the property. In fact, Johnny (or Billy) can likely do what they want with the property--trash it or keep it, if they give Tommy a reasonable opportunity to get his stuff. Tommy sounds like a baby. He needs to grow up. He also needs to come get his shit out of your pad. I practice civil litigation (lawsuits not involving family law or criminal law) in Texas. PM me if you live in Texas need a good lawyer. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
Billy is right. Billy's brother fucked up if he thought he could speak on Billy's behalf, but if he didn't think that and never made a serious offer or anything, then Tommy is stupid. Tommy is also stupid for just saying that "I won't bother to come over there, but I'm just calling to let you know that your room holds my stuff and you'd better not fucking use it or I won't do anything." Seriously, who even bothers when you don't even give enough of a shit to get in your car and go to your old place? | ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
| ||
|
illsick
United States1770 Posts
On February 11 2012 12:36 MrBitter wrote: Can Tommy argue verbal contract with Billy's brother? would you want your brother to sign up for something you didn't agree on? I don't think Billy owes anything. I think it's dumb for Tommy to tell Billy not to use the furniture. He has other options; sell the furniture or move the furniture out. Why would Tommy bring it up to Billy's brother if he wanted to sell it to Billy; should have just asked Billy. It's a bit greedy of Tommy since obviously he left it there and wasn't planning on using the furniture. Where's the love? he wasn't using it and he had no room to store anywhere; storage cost $$$ too. Why wouldn't he want to move out the stuff now? cuz he probably doesn't have room anywhere to put it and he might have to pay money to store it somewhere. Honestly, I wouldn't even say it's Billy's fault if he just told Tommy he was leaving the furniture outside to get thrown out. And obviously Billy doesn't care if Tommy sells the furniture. | ||
Balgrog
United States1221 Posts
| ||
|
isleyofthenorth
Austria894 Posts
| ||
|
Tivu
United States244 Posts
| ||
|
Arachne
South Africa426 Posts
The lease agreement should have had a clause about whether flat was furnished, and if the furniture was NOT included the onus is on Tommy to make sure the rented space was clean of all unnecessary clutter, as that space that he was using for storage was technically no longer his. If Billy was not actually allowed to use the furniture and Tommy messed it up, Billy has more of a claim against Tommy due to negligence and having his space used as storage than Tommy does for Billy using his stuff "zoz, was storing his stuff for him, so figured I could use it and he wouldnt have to pay me" Lease agreements are crucial tho.... And the laws of the area involved (SA has some crazy stuff protecting the poorer people... in this case tenants are protected more than landlords, but don't know ths specifics) | ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
On February 11 2012 14:17 Mr. Black wrote: + Show Spoiler + A legal analysis from an actual, practicing lawyer. First, I assume we are in America. I can't speak to the laws of wherever it is that "Johnny" lives currently, likely somewhere over the pond. Ok, so, first -- does Johnny have any responsibility to Tommy? "Johnny doesn't mind this, as it basically means he has a furnished bedroom to offer to guests when they come by." Johnny actually does have a responsibility under the law of bailments. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailment This is a "mutual bailment" in that Tommy benefitted from being able to store his furniture and Johnny got to have a furnished room for guests. The responsibility that Johnny has to Tommy is that he must exercise ordinary, reasonable care to prevent the furniture from being harmed. In other words, Johnny cannot intentionally trash the stuff without Tommy's permission, or at the very least, without giving Tommy a reasonable opportunity to retrieve his items. Second, should Billy have to pay Tommy? "Tommy comes to visit, and hangs out with Billy, Billy's brother (who is also in town), and Johnny for a few days. While he's in town, he talks to Billy's brother about selling his furniture to Billy. The brother seems agreeable to the prospect of Billy buying the furniture, but the subject is never actually brought up with Billy. Tommy leaves thinking he has sold his old stuff." Billy almost certainly should not have to pay Tommy. However, there are circumstances consistent with the above facts in which Billy could have to pay Tommy. First, if Billy authorized his brother to negotiate on his behalf (for example if Billy hired his brother as his attorney or agent or even his furniture consultant)--then if Billy's brother made a deal, Billy needs to pay. Second, if Billy's actions would reasonably lead Tommy to believe that Billy's brother had the authority to bind Billy, then Billy would have to pay. For example, if Tommy said, "Hey Billy, you interested in buying my furniture?" and Billy said, "Ask my brother, he knows furniture and handles my furniture deals." This is the law of agency. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(law) Even if Billy's brother was authorized to make a deal that would bind Billy, do we have an enforceable contract? That depends on a few things: First, obviously there is no written, signed contract, or we would not have this problem. In the absence of a written contract, we have to prove an oral contract. The sale of goods (like furniture) is governed by article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Under the UCC, a contract can be any offer and acceptance and can be proven by mere conduct that demonstrates that a deal has been reached. So, IF Billy's brother was authorized to deal for Billy, WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID TO TOMMY is important in determining if there is an enforceable contract. UNLESS -- the sale price is over $500. Under the "Statute of Frauds" provision of the UCC, contracts for the sales of goods over $500 must be memorialized in writing. So, in order for Tommy to collect from Billy, he needs to be able to show 1) that Billy's brother had actual or apparent authority to make a deal on Billy's behalf, 2) that Tommy and Billy's brother actually reached a deal, and 3) that the deal was for less than $500. If Tommy was trying to hire me to take his case, I would tell him that it was a bad idea, but that I would be willing to represent him for $20,000.00 paid up front (this is how I handle refusing representation in bad cases -- because, who knows, maybe some fool will take me up on it some time). Can Tommy leave his property at Johnny's house (in Billy's room, no less) indefinitely and forbid Billy from using the property? No. Of course not. Assuming we have a reliable narrator, Tommy is being a fucking tool. First, when Billy moved in, Tommy's property stopped being beneficial to Johnny -- in legal terms, the bailment was no longer mutual, but rather gratuitous. When a bailment only benefits the property owner, the holder of the property only needs to refrain from GROSS NEGLIGENCE in preventing harm to the property. In fact, Johnny (or Billy) can likely do what they want with the property--trash it or keep it, if they give Tommy a reasonable opportunity to get his stuff. Tommy sounds like a baby. He needs to grow up. He also needs to come get his shit out of your pad. I practice civil litigation (lawsuits not involving family law or criminal law) in Texas. PM me if you live in Texas need a good lawyer. That was super righteous. Every time I read something from a lawyer, it makes me think that maybe I should reconsider and try to get into law school. I probably won't, but this was an awesome read. Anyways, Mr. Bitter if you are Johnny, do you have any relationship issues here. Like are you friends with Tommy and/or Billy? It seems most people here have decided you have no legal or moral standing on which to side with Tommy who is the aggressor here, so do you have any social reason to? If not, then you should be all set. | ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
| ||
| ||
