Gerald Higgins
Well-known Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 9,258
All this discussion about the difference between the value in an appraisal, and the price someone is actually willing to pay, is relevant IF the question is, what exactly is something worth ? But that's not the question. The question is, IF there should be compensation, what should that compensation be based on ? For most everyday things, I agree that determining the exact value may be difficult, if not impossible. But we can usually at least agree a realistic range of prices.
Let's take the house in jeffreybrown's example, that he bought for $200,000.
Maybe an appraiser says it's worth $230,000.
Maybe some other appraiser says it's worth $220,000.
Maybe he can only ACTUALLY SELL it for $210,000.
I think it's reasonable to say that if is house is destroyed by a criminal act, then IF the criminal should pay compensation for that loss, then the compensation should be IN THE REGION of $210,000 to $230,000.
The difference between these two numbers is of no importance to this debate whatsover.
The point is, jeffreybrown's compensation should be linked to the price he would have to pay to restore him to the position he was in before the crime.
And I really think the purchase price is totally irrelevant here.
Consider these alternative ways he could have acquired the house.
1) He bought it, and paid $200,000.
2) He bought it 40 years ago, and paid $2,000 for it.
3) He bought it 5 years ago, and paid $300,000 for it, because the housing market was at a peak.
4) He bought it, and paid $500,000, because he really likes it alot, even though no-one else does, and also the vendor was a family friend and he wanted to do them a favour.
5) He won it in a poker game.
6) He didn't buy it, he built it himself, and he has no idea how much it cost.
7) He bought it using a currency that no longer exists (maybe unrealistic in the USA, but definitely possible in Europe, before the Euro)
8) He inherited it
9) He was given it as a gift
10) He got it through a bartering transaction, maybe exchanging it for some labour or some other commodities.
11) He acquired it somehow, but for personal reasons he does not want to divulge how he acquired it or what price (if any) he paid for it.
12) He bought it many years ago, and no longer remembers exactly how much he paid for it, or no longer has documents to support his recollection of how much he paid for it.
All of these are POSSIBLE ways that one could acquire things of value, even if they might be technically impossible ways of buying a HOUSE in the USA.
IF purchase price is everything, then the criminal would have to pay potentially vastly different compensation, and in some cases no compensation at all, or the amount of compensation could be absolutely impossible to determine (and not just impossible to determine precisely).
To me, this is self evidently wrong.
And consider as well - imagine there were two identical adjacent houses, acquired by different people at entirely different prices, but otherwise identical, that were both destroyed in the same criminal act.
Using the purchase price argument, the criminal would pay (possibly very) different amounts to each victim.
To me, this is also self evidently wrong.
And one/the solution, is to base compensation on re-instatement costs.
Let's take the house in jeffreybrown's example, that he bought for $200,000.
Maybe an appraiser says it's worth $230,000.
Maybe some other appraiser says it's worth $220,000.
Maybe he can only ACTUALLY SELL it for $210,000.
I think it's reasonable to say that if is house is destroyed by a criminal act, then IF the criminal should pay compensation for that loss, then the compensation should be IN THE REGION of $210,000 to $230,000.
The difference between these two numbers is of no importance to this debate whatsover.
The point is, jeffreybrown's compensation should be linked to the price he would have to pay to restore him to the position he was in before the crime.
And I really think the purchase price is totally irrelevant here.
Consider these alternative ways he could have acquired the house.
1) He bought it, and paid $200,000.
2) He bought it 40 years ago, and paid $2,000 for it.
3) He bought it 5 years ago, and paid $300,000 for it, because the housing market was at a peak.
4) He bought it, and paid $500,000, because he really likes it alot, even though no-one else does, and also the vendor was a family friend and he wanted to do them a favour.
5) He won it in a poker game.
6) He didn't buy it, he built it himself, and he has no idea how much it cost.
7) He bought it using a currency that no longer exists (maybe unrealistic in the USA, but definitely possible in Europe, before the Euro)
8) He inherited it
9) He was given it as a gift
10) He got it through a bartering transaction, maybe exchanging it for some labour or some other commodities.
11) He acquired it somehow, but for personal reasons he does not want to divulge how he acquired it or what price (if any) he paid for it.
12) He bought it many years ago, and no longer remembers exactly how much he paid for it, or no longer has documents to support his recollection of how much he paid for it.
All of these are POSSIBLE ways that one could acquire things of value, even if they might be technically impossible ways of buying a HOUSE in the USA.
IF purchase price is everything, then the criminal would have to pay potentially vastly different compensation, and in some cases no compensation at all, or the amount of compensation could be absolutely impossible to determine (and not just impossible to determine precisely).
To me, this is self evidently wrong.
And consider as well - imagine there were two identical adjacent houses, acquired by different people at entirely different prices, but otherwise identical, that were both destroyed in the same criminal act.
Using the purchase price argument, the criminal would pay (possibly very) different amounts to each victim.
To me, this is also self evidently wrong.
And one/the solution, is to base compensation on re-instatement costs.
Last edited:
