Jump to content

35 posts in this topic

Posted

A Huntington Beach, California mother accidentally sold her nearly $18,000 diamond earrings for $20 at a garage sale last month.

 Dori Rhoades, 38, said she hid her earrings, $1,500 she was saving for a family vacation and a ring her husband gave her in the pocket of an old denim jacket in case she was ever robbed.

 The morning of her May garage sale, she said she completely forgot what was inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's why you double-check everything you're about to sell or donate. Sucks to be her, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I guess it wasn't a very honest person who bought the jacket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I really don't have any sympathy. If you have an $18,000 pair of earrings then you should be able to afford a safe to store them in and insurance to protect against their potential theft. Her behaviour was reckless and it looks like it has cost her dearly.

 

I guess it wasn't a very honest person who bought the jacket.

One could argue that the sale was legitimate and therefore the buyer has nothing to be dishonest about.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wait, because the person who bought the coat chose not to return it equates to him/her not being a honest person? Talk about "buyers beware" if I have to do the sellers job for him/her and ensure the seller isn't being ripped off.

 

The woman isn't a victim, she made a mistake and needs to deal with it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

called a safe or a safety deposit box.  Dumb woman


Wait, because the person who bought the coat chose not to return it equates to him not being a honest person?

 

More like the person who bought it doesnt have a conscious.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I really don't have any sympathy. If you have an $18,000 pair of earrings then you should be able to afford a safe to store them in and insurance to protect against their potential theft. Her behaviour was reckless and it looks like it has cost her dearly.

 

One could argue that the sale was legitimate and therefore the buyer has nothing to be dishonest about.

If someone finds a wallet with money, it wouldn't be considered honest to keep it, if you can find the rightful owner.

 

Keeping something you know does not belong to you, used to be against the standards. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Keeping something you know does not belong to you, used to be against the standards. ;)

 

Still is in my eyes and good citizens.  If I bought the jeans and found that , you can be sure I would give it back.  A few weeks ago, someone dropped their signed credit card when they walked past me.  I picked it up and gave it back to that person.  I could of easily went and started making charges on it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I guess it wasn't a very honest person who bought the jacket.

Who are you to judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

^ Hum. :happy:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

called a safe or a safety deposit box.  Dumb woman


 

More like the person who bought it doesnt have a conscious.

 

A matter of opinion. Emotions have no place in business, she sold a product far less than its actual value; he is totally not at fault.

 

If someone finds a wallet with money, it wouldn't be considered honest to keep it, if you can find the rightful owner.

 

Keeping something you know does not belong to you, used to be against the standards. ;)

 

Keyword: found. No one found these pants, they were sold, as is, for a value far less than the actual worth. There was no "infliction of harm" against standards.

 

Still is in my eyes and good citizens.  If I bought the jeans and found that , you can be sure I would give it back.  A few weeks ago, someone dropped their signed credit card when they walked past me.  I picked it up and gave it back to that person.  I could of easily went and started making charges on it.

 

...which would also be illegal. Is everyone here confused about the difference between "returning a lost item" and "business transactions". No one would bat an eyelash if Microsoft accidentally gave Windows 8 out for free at its stores and you better believe there would be outrage if they blacklisted the keys.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A matter of opinion. Emotions have no place in business, she sold a product far less than its actual value; he is totally not at fault.


Not saying he at fault. Just that the person who bought the pants had no conscious and its obvious to a 3yr old that there was a mistake.
 

...which would also be illegal. Is everyone here confused about the difference between "returning a lost item" and "business transactions". No one would bat an eyelash if Microsoft accidentally gave Windows 8 out for free at its stores and you better believe there would be outrage if they blacklisted the keys.


It is not a business transaction and its not a matter of returning a lost item. It is a matter of right and wrong and doing the right thing. There have been articles posted here where lots of money was found, and the person returned it. These are good and honest people. It is obvious to anyone that if you buy a $15 pair of jeans and find goods worth thousands in them that there was a mistake.

All I know is that if something like this would have ever happened to me, I would want the person to do what I would...return the item. What goes around comes around.

Keyword: found. No one found these pants, they were sold, as is, for a value far less than the actual worth. There was no "infliction of harm" against standards.


Yes, pants were sold but that wasnt his point. Pants were sold and other items found that obviously were not meant to be sold.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No sympathy here. This is what lockboxes and safes are for. Not even a brain fart can explain away how someone would forget they're hiding things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's always easy for people to make judgement on cases like this since it didn't happen to them.

If I was that woman, I'd sure as hell hope the buyer is honest enough to return the items.  

Nobody here can honestly claim that they would simply suck it up.  I'd bet most people here would get somewhat upset if you misplaced $20. Now imagine losing $20,000...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not saying he at fault. Just that the person who bought the pants had no conscious and its obvious to a 3yr old that there was a mistake.
 

It is not a business transaction and its not a matter of returning a lost item. It is a matter of right and wrong and doing the right thing. There have been articles posted here where lots of money was found, and the person returned it. These are good and honest people. It is obvious to anyone that if you buy a $15 pair of jeans and find goods worth thousands in them that there was a mistake.

All I know is that if something like this would of ever happened to me, I would want the person to do what I would...return the item. What goes around comes around.

Yes, pants were sold but that wasnt his point. Pants were sold and other items found that obviously were not meant to be sold.

 

Correct, a mistake on her behalf. I find it appalling that it is easy to declare it "morally right" for the buyer to fix the seller's mistake and to appease the seller. What can he expect in return? A pat the back? A thank you?

 

I guess its up to the buyer and what they would be satisfied with.

 

Perhaps I am a cut and dry kind of person but I don't expect others to fix my mistakes nor will I step up and fix others mistakes in turn. A lot of problems in the world would go away if other entities shared the same sentiments.


It's always easy for people to make judgement on cases like this since it didn't happen to them.

If I was that woman, I'd sure as hell hope the buyer is honest enough to return the items.  

Nobody here can honestly claim that they would simply suck it up.  I'd bet most people here would get somewhat upset if you misplaced $20. Now imagine losing $20,000...

 

You better damn well believe I'd be ripping my hair out but I would have to deal with it. Don't expect others to fix mistakes you make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

...which would also be illegal.


Some states this would be illegal, like California. It is basically a lost item. A business transaction would have knowledge of what was in the pockets and would be included in the transaction.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/485.html
 

485. One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him
knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who
appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another
person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just
efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is
guilty of theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You better damn well believe I'd be ripping my hair out but I would have to deal with it. Don't expect others to fix mistakes you make.

Well yeah, in the end it's her fault.  But ethically the buyer should realize they need to return the items they unknowingly "bought".

 

This also happened a few weeks back when somebody accidentally sold a watch case with a $10k wedding ring hidden in it.  The buyer returned it and it got all sorts of media coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

heck, i do not even do laundry without first checking to make sure the pockets are empty.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

More like the person who bought it doesnt have a conscious.

 

 

Who are you to judge?

 

Majority of people I know would return the earrings. You bought the jacket, not what's in it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Some states this would be illegal, like California. It is basically a lost item. A business transaction would have knowledge of what was in the pockets and would be included in the transaction.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/485.html
 

 

The transaction was for the sale of the pants as an entity. The rings and such were within the pants and therefore would be considered a part of the pants (read the entity).

 

The law you quoted only deals with cases of lost items and you know the owner. This is how storage lockers/bank sells/etc get by with auctioning off various items that POSSIBLY include other items as well. The only differences between this case and the cases within my example is that pant sales don't require a "window of opportunity" to acquire any potential lost goods.

 

There has been no laws broken here and if it ever went to civil court, it wouldn't be long before the judge casts it out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The law you quoted only deals with cases of lost items and you know the owner. This is how storage lockers/bank sells/etc get by with auctioning off various items that POSSIBLY include other items as well. The only differences between this case and the cases within my example is that pant sales don't require a "window of opportunity" to acquire any potential lost goods.

 

You're forgetting an important detail here.  When you sign the contract for something like the storage locker, you are agreeing that if you don't pay your bills, you lose ownership of the property.  This is a much different scenario than what's being discussed.

 

If I go to a store and stuff a bunch of products in the pocket of a coat and only pay for the coat, it doesn't mean you are entitled to everything that's inside the coat.  This is much closer to what's at topic, minus the intentional theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The transaction was for the sale of the pants as an entity. The rings and such were within the pants and therefore would be considered a part of the pants (read the entity).
 
The law you quoted only deals with cases of lost items and you know the owner. This is how storage lockers/bank sells/etc get by with auctioning off various items that POSSIBLY include other items as well. The only differences between this case and the cases within my example is that pant sales don't require a "window of opportunity" to acquire any potential lost goods.
 
There has been no laws broken here and if it ever went to civil court, it wouldn't be long before the judge casts it out.


You cannot compare storage locker auctions to something like this. Storage locker auctions, the previous owners probably knew what was in the locker but could not afford to pay their rent and lost everything inside. The person gave up their rights legally to all items inside. And no window of opportunity was is required. You find a big chunk of money laying around, it doesnt belong to you, and you are legally required to turn it in. If no one claims it within a certain time frame, it is yours.

The person who bought the pants knew full well they were not supposed to be included in the transaction and who the real owner was and obvious the items did not belong to him.

You're forgetting an important detail here.  When you sign the contract for something like the storage locker, you are agreeing that if you don't pay your bills, you lose ownership of the property.  This is a much different scenario than what's being discussed.
 
If I go to a store and stuff a bunch of products in the pocket of a coat and only pay for the coat, it doesn't mean you are entitled to everything that's inside the coat.  This is much closer to what's at topic, minus the intentional theft.


Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're forgetting an important detail here.  When you sign the contract for something like the storage locker, you are agreeing that if you don't pay your bills, you lose ownership of the property.  This is a much different scenario than what's being discussed.

 

If I go to a store and stuff a bunch of products in the pocket of a coat and only pay for the coat, it doesn't mean you are entitled to everything that's inside the coat.  This is much closer to what's at topic, minus the intentional theft.

 

Again, there is a clear difference between someone taking items or "stuffing them into a coat and buying the coat only" vs. The seller marketed a jacket for a value much lower than its actual value.

 

Responsibility falls onto the seller to ensure what they are selling is for the value they feel it is worth to them. Not the buyer; stop trying to argue that its the buyer's responsibility to fix the seller's mistakes.

 

As for my example, it is still perfectly valid. This was a one-time sale, my example was a contract. I drew references but never declared it to be a 1:1 identical situation.

 

Your point being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If I go to a store and stuff a bunch of products in the pocket of a coat and only pay for the coat, it doesn't mean you are entitled to everything that's inside the coat.  This is much closer to what's at topic, minus the intentional theft.

That's not even close to comparable. Here we're talking about a jacket that was sold containing jewellery and cash of a much higher value than the price of sale. There was no malice on the part of the buyer, rather there was a mistake made by the seller. Of course it is morally right to return those items but it is financially prudent to keep them and certainly not illegal. At the end of the day this woman's actions flew in the face of common sense. There's no way I'd consider keeping such expensive jewellery or such a large amount of cash without a safe and adequate insurance - her actions were reckless.

 

Hopefully the buyer will return the items, if not she could perhaps make the money back through an online pity fund, selling her story to the media or a generous benefactor.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is an old story.

It was on bskyb news and I am sure b.c.c.1 news two weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.