Stamp Debate

[justme]

now you have changed it from ripping it in half and burning it, to it being an accident. So, that changes everything. Intent is the key.

If you damaged my stamp on purpose, restitution absolutely should be made- and probably a super restitution, (meaning more than the value of the stamp).

If you damaged my stamp by accident, restitution would be nice, but forgiveness better!

 

[Jonmo1]

I would think I only owe you what you paid for the stamp, not what it's currently worth if you sold it.
And if you don't have a reciept for the purchase, then I owe you the face value of the stamp.
How much the post office would credit you if you put it on an envelope and mailed it.

 

[BenMiller]

now you have changed it from ripping it in half and burning it, to it being an accident. So, that changes everything. Intent is the key.

If you damaged my stamp on purpose, restitution absolutely should be made- and probably a super restitution, (meaning more than the value of the stamp).

If you damaged my stamp by accident, restitution would be nice, but forgiveness better!

I don't think intent is the key, when it comes to financial obligations. Whether I smash your car with intent or whether I lose control of my car and smash yours completely by accident, I still pay the same amount...

 

[BenMiller]

I would think I only owe you what you paid for the stamp, not what it's currently worth if you sold it.
And if you don't have a reciept for the purchase, then I owe you the face value of the stamp.
How much the post office would credit you if you put it on an envelope and mailed it.

Why should that be? If you purchase something and the value goes up or down, I need to pay what it was worth when I broke it... no? I hate to keep using the car example but if you paid fifty grand for a brand new car back in 1990 and now it's a POS (and then I go and smash it), why would I have to pay the original price? Conversely, if you bought a car in the 70s and it is now a vintage worth far more than you paid for it, I should pay for smashing your antique car.

 

[Jonmo1]

Why should that be? If you purchase something and the value goes up or down, I need to pay what it was worth when I broke it... no? I hate to keep using the car example but if you paid fifty grand for a brand new car back in 1990 and now it's a POS (and then I go and smash it), why would I have to pay the original price? Conversely, if you bought a car in the 70s and it is now a vintage worth far more than you paid for it, I should pay for smashing your antique car.

Because you've only actually lost what you paid for it.
You never actually HAD the current estimated value, so you didn't lose it.
You lost the Potential for the current estimated value..

If you wanted to recover the potential value, your insurance company would pay that, that's what it's for and why it's expensive.

 

[BenMiller]

And what if I received it as a gift?! Why should the original purchase price have anything to do with the amount I pay when I damage it?

 

[Jonmo1]

I'll bet if you bought a collectors item for $100
And a year later it's value has dropped to only $50
And then I broke it.
You would expect me to pay you $100, because that's the $ amount that you lost.
You're lying if you think it would be fair for me to only have to pay you $50.

So the reverse should also true.

 

[chuckchuckit]

This is all about being responsible for your actions.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
Modern day trick is: If you can get people to talk long enough about “the logic” of why it is OK to be harmful because of “the benefits” of causing harm, you no longer are responsible for doing whatever harm you want.
<o> </o>
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time…

 

[Jonmo1]

Although the gift part does pose a problem....

 

[BenMiller]

I'll bet if you bought a collectors item for $100
And a year later it's value has dropped to only $50
And then I broke it.
You would expect me to pay you $100, because that's the $ amount that you lost.
You're lying if you think it would be fair for me to only have to pay you $50.

So the reverse should also true.

I don't think so... you lost half of that $100 before I stepped foot in the picture. And why should it be decided by what I want you to pay?

I think it is a very clear rule: When you damage someone financially, you must reimburse them for the damage which you caused. That includes if you burnt their money, or smashed their things which are worth money. No difference whether it was on purpose or not. I'm not talking about whether or not you should go to jail; I'm talking about monies owed.