Jump to content



Photo

Woman frantic after pricey garage sale mistake

california video news expensive jewels denim jacket

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#16 +techbeck

techbeck

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,676 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 28 June 2013 - 17:39

...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.co.../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.




#17 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • 7,654 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 28 June 2013 - 17:41

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.



#18 Geoffrey B.

Geoffrey B.

    LittleNeutrino

  • 15,463 posts
  • Joined: 25-July 05
  • Location: Newark, Ohio
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 928

Posted 28 June 2013 - 17:43

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



#19 Dinggus

Dinggus

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,543 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 05

Posted 28 June 2013 - 17:49

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.



#20 Zidane

Zidane

    Spoutcraft Lead

  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 02
  • Location: Wisconsin
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 925

Posted 28 June 2013 - 17:50

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.co.../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.



#21 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • 7,654 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 28 June 2013 - 17:56

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.



#22 +techbeck

techbeck

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,676 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 28 June 2013 - 18:00

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

#23 Zidane

Zidane

    Spoutcraft Lead

  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 02
  • Location: Wisconsin
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 925

Posted 28 June 2013 - 18:03

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?



#24 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 15,425 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 28 June 2013 - 18:09

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.



#25 leesmithg

leesmithg

    The Major!

  • 9,296 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04
  • Location: Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, England.

Posted 28 June 2013 - 18:18

This is an old story.

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

#26 Raze

Raze

    Mentally Compromised

  • 3,733 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 04
  • Location: Third Planet

Posted 28 June 2013 - 18:37

1. The seller forgot about the items she had stored in the denim jacket.

2. The seller made a mistake of selling the denim jacket with the items stored in the pocket.

3. The buyer purchased the denim jacket.

4. It was not the intent of the seller to sell the items.

 

The seller made a very costly mistake, as to her reasons for using the jacket to protect the items from a potential robbery, it's not for anyone to judge.  Too many hard core attitudes, she made a mistake, true, why add insult to it? Does it make you feel smarter or superior?  Only if you have never made any mistakes of your own maybe.

The buyer did not break any laws that I can find and it is certainly up to the buyer to decide whether or not to return the items.

 

The seller will,of course, deal with the mistake in her way.  And maybe the buyer will return the items.



#27 Zidane

Zidane

    Spoutcraft Lead

  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 02
  • Location: Wisconsin
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 925

Posted 28 June 2013 - 19:53

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.

 

I can't thumbs this up enough. Its the same exact thing I am trying to say (besides the morals but that's just me).



#28 soldier1st

soldier1st

    Software Tester/Tech/Linux Lover

  • 5,268 posts
  • Joined: 21-December 03
  • Location: Guess Where
  • OS: Windows 7,Android,Linux Mint
  • Phone: HTC Incredible S

Posted 28 June 2013 - 20:11

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

I would think that a smart person bought it, instead of a "wasen't very honest person". It was her mistake and she payed for it. if she wants it back, then she will need to find the person who bought it, and pay what they are asking. I have no sympathy for people who make these kinds of mistakes.



#29 soldier1st

soldier1st

    Software Tester/Tech/Linux Lover

  • 5,268 posts
  • Joined: 21-December 03
  • Location: Guess Where
  • OS: Windows 7,Android,Linux Mint
  • Phone: HTC Incredible S

Posted 28 June 2013 - 20:20

called a safe or a safety deposit box.  Dumb woman


 

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

The buyer doesn't need to have a conscious, if they know what something is worth, and the price is a fraction of the asking price, then who wouldn't buy it and turn a profit? The woman made a mistake, but she needs to live with it and learn from this.


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. ;)

If the person is honest, they will return the wallet, but if they aren't then there isn't much that can be done, unless the wallet has a tracker of some kind.



#30 soldier1st

soldier1st

    Software Tester/Tech/Linux Lover

  • 5,268 posts
  • Joined: 21-December 03
  • Location: Guess Where
  • OS: Windows 7,Android,Linux Mint
  • Phone: HTC Incredible S

Posted 28 June 2013 - 20:36

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...

It was a transaction plain and simple, therefore, the buyer isn't required to return it. if the woman were to locate the buyer, and demanded the item(s) returned, then the buyer isn't required to give said item(s) back, unless, there was a contract of some kind, at time of sale. Once you sell something. that item is no longer yours, as you have sold all rights to it.





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!