Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005 Status: offline
|
Another Termy's Terminal production, brought to you free of charge, as always. This is all actually true to the best of my knowledge to which I will swear and attest. Really though if I do screw it up, at least it is not political. Of course some of the names have been changed to protect the guilty. Case backgroind : H has a laptop for sale, which T has in his possesion to think about buying it. It would come in handy for work but the laptop is not the most pristeen specimen, but since it runs XP acceptably it is under consideration and the specs will be found out later. The unit in question is sitting on top of two boxes in the middle of the livingroom floor for easy access. This is T's house and one day he walks in and lays a jacket over the laptop, and really pays no mind. It sits there until S comes over. S in a compulsive, reactive and highly energetic individual other than the fouteen hours a day he sleeps. He takes and moves T's jacket to get by so he can sit on the couch, and the laptop hits the floor. So much for that. T seeks damages from S in the amount of the purchase price of the laptop. T will not have a free laptop, nor an extra amount of money, as it forwards to H automatically. S's carelessness caused this and therefore like anyone who walks in your home and damages something should pay for it. S, in defense asserts that T was careless to leave something so valuable in such a vulnerable place, and that he did not see the laptop, and technically did not even actually touch the laptop. Therefore T should be liable for the loss. ______ In some states, a litigant's ability to pay is considered when rendering any kind of split judgement. This is a non issue, both litigants have near equal ability to pay. However neither wants to pay of course. 5,,,,,4,,,,,3,,,,,2,,,,,1,,,,,GO ! T
|