Stamp Debate

[BenMiller]

A friend of mine posed an interesting question to me the other day, and I'm curious to see what people on this forum think. It actually came up in a Talmudic discussion we were having (yeah, I study the Talmud; I'm a religious Jew lol), I'd like to see what people say about this.

It's obvious that when you damage someone's property you're obligated to pay them back in full. If I smash your car or break your vase, I need to pay for the monetary loss I caused you.

How about this: You own two very rare stamps, each valued at $50,000. They are the only two of their kind in existence. I take one of them, rip it in half and burn it. I owe you $50,000! Right? Here's the catch. The other stamp, now being the only one in existence, has now doubled in value; and is worth $100,000.

Do I owe you anything? Go!

 

[Michael M]

The doubling of value of the 2nd stamp is actually irrelevent to the original crime of destroying the first.....you still owe me $50k.
Some similar commentary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_burning

 

[BenMiller]

Interesting read, thanks for the link!

Think of it like this: What if I simultaneously robbed you and threw money at you? Or better, what if instead of paying cash for smashing your car, I paid you the value of the damage in a case of mailboxes worth the same amount? Would that not be considered a valid payment (assuming I could "pay" with objects of value as opposed to just cash)? So what if I "paid you" using a rare stamp? One which happened to be yours already?

 

[Michael M]

I dunno what your smokin, but none of what your saying makes any legal sense
If I was happy with a case of mailboxes, so be it !!, but you don't get the choice.....if I am entitled to compensation, you will give me what I want, either by law, or by lawful agreement !

 

[BenMiller]

Part of this question I guess is to remove the law for a second, and think with pure logic. I'm not saying either way, I just think its something to think about. And no officer, I have not been smoking (tonight)!

 

[Michael M]

Ok....blow in this tube then....
Geez, WHAT !!

remove the law for a second

if you remove the law....there is Anarchy....it's my stamp, 'cause I took it off you.....ya wanna fight me for it.....

 

[JamesW]

Part of this question I guess is to remove the law for a second, and think with pure logic. I'm not saying either way, I just think its something to think about. And no officer, I have not been smoking (tonight)!

If I look at this with 'pure logic' as you say then surely it would be something like:

"You broke my car, I want compensating for the damage. The car costs a total of £10,000 and as I am the victim I will decide on how the £10,000 gets paid to me - in this case I want it paid in cheese."

Surely it's down to the victim to decide how he/she gets compensated (assuming no laws here)...

 

[justme]

I believe the $50,000 would need to be paid even if the remaining stamp's value went up to $100,000. There was originally two stamps, by destroying one you have forever taken away the possibility of both stamps being worth even more than $100,00 each.

 

[justme]

Now don't think of it in terms of value - just look at what was done. A crime was done against another and punishment/reparation must be made even if the crime results in good fortune for the victim.

 

[BenMiller]

Justme: I don't think anyone will say I have to pay for damaging something which could have eventually gone up in value. Also, you're thinking from a legal perspective: don't think of it as a punishment; merely financial payment for the financial loss. Imagine if I had done it by accident. No crime there; but I'd still (maybe) be obligated to pay...