RE: BDSM small claims

RE: BDSM small claims (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

BDSM small claims

Dom A should pay half, sub b keeps the toys.

17% (7)

Dom A should pay the total cost.

7% (3)

Dom A should pay nothing, for getting nothing.

75% (30)

Total Votes : 40

(last vote on : 3/21/2009 6:02:46 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Daddysredhead -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 4:24:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah Okay I have never given a collar second hand but I'll be damned if I let her keep the damn thing. I have given them to friends (Usually Vanilla) who had shown interest. warm fuzzies [:)] quote: what do you call the Viberator that 90% of women Polled (Factoid on RealSex #27) admitted they do not always wash inbetween uses. With that being said even though it is your own juice that is WAY MORE FUNKY than anything I would allow. That's just skanky, but I know it happens. I used to sell Passion Party toys and I would explain the whole "hygiene, hygiene, hygiene" thing till they were rolling their eyes. I always pushed the toy cleaner if they were going to spend the money to buy the toy. If you're autoclaving the sex toys, then I suppose they are as sanitary as a speculum that the OB/GYN uses at the doctor's office. I was just thinking of those scungee type of things mentioned in your quote above. The ones that are a breeding ground for infection and funk. shudders

FourQ -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 4:56:55 AM)
I've been in similar situations (vanilla environment) before so nowadays I insist on half made by PayPal up front. As for the situation posted, the sub bought the toys and has full use of them. Legally speaking she is the rightful owner of the property. As the Dom has offered to pay for half, and it's still gone to court then I would rule that the sub gets nothing. They might have broken off the relationship but that's no justification for taking someone to court after they've offered to pay for something that they're never going to use. The original agreement was that the Dom paid for half on the understanding that He'd also have the enjoyment of using them on the sub. There are always infinite other variables to be taken in to consideration but with the above information and myself in that situation, had I offered to pay half and been taken to court then I wouldn't then want to have to pay half.

MsFlutter -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 6:14:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus So, there's something wrong with being a toy whore? [:o] LOLOL - I sure hope not coz I'd be in LOTS of trouble if there was. Same way with fabric and shooz !

beargonewild -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 6:57:35 AM)
It all boils down to the sub ordered and thus paid for the purchases. Therefore the sub owns the toys outright.

SavageFaerie -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 7:23:02 AM)
I'm of two minds about this. The fact that Dom and sub did not work out does not negate the fact that before and during the purchance there was a valid verbal agreement that the Dom would pay half. The scenario doesnt not mention the what ifs about if things fell through. sub made the purchase with the understanding that half would be reimbursed wihch was the agreement. (verbal contract) Dom broke this verbal agreement leaving sub with the full price of the toys. In a legal view I think he sould meet this financial obligation which was first agreed. Like others said, the smart thing to have done was purchase these toys when the actually meeting took place, since online is such a fickle thing. But hind sight is 20/20. But I also agree that since sub paid for it, the toys are indeed hers to use as she sees fit. In this scenario Dom didnt not reimburse sub anything so he broke the financial contract therefore it not entitled to swat.

DesFIP -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 7:29:29 AM)
If he insisted she buy the toy, and he promised to pay half, then he should keep his word. She bought them expecting to only have to budget for half the cost, not all of it. Instead he got to see her use them on cam, got his rocks off and has now stuck her with the bill. If he knew ahead of time that she would not have bought these things with her own money but did so solely because she expected to get reimbursement of 50%, then he needs to be a man of his word. She should keep the insertables but he should get some of the other toys sent to him.

MissMorrigan -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 8:35:28 AM)
I would need to see a written agreement and the items under dispute. Ah, no agreement? The old 'gentleman's handshake' went out years ago. Without a written agreement signed by both parties, it is resigned to a matter of hearsay and each person will naturally put forth an argument which will be to their benefit. So the burden falls on ownership. The plaintiff has possession of the items, the plaintiff clearly purchased said items. Ownership is not an issue, clearly the plaintiff has ownership. The initial agreement was made under the expectations of a relationship of sorts and the proviso that the 'pleasure enhancers' would be used for both person's enjoyment with each other. The relationship did not come to fruition, is the plaintiff naive to think that should judgement be made in their favour that the defendent then doesn't have a right of access to those items or part-ownership? No judge in their right mind would issue such an order. Madam, lick your wounds. Better still, use the items purchased to help you do this and make better judgement calls yourself in the future, i.e., at least establish a relationship prior to investing financially. At least you can now enter into a new relationship and depart from it as the proud owner of your own toys. It's cleaner, it's safer, you know where they have been and where they will go.

everhope -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 9:18:42 AM)
i think this is a clear case of suck it up buttercup and enjoy your newly purchased toys.

SavageFaerie -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 9:30:48 AM)
MM yes it was a verbal agreement, but the Dom has admitted in this scenario that he did agree to pay half. There was expectation on the sub part that there would be half a reinbusement since the Dom agreed and admitted to. I believe that validates the verbal contract into a viable one. Had he denied he offered to pay then yes there would be a matter of heresay. Plus he did indeed benefit via cam. I know not the same as in person but benefit he did. How a judge would rule, well is dependant on the judge I guess. Would the judge declare the contract (agreement) was valid and despite the outcome of the reltionship rule that cost should be 50/50. Or would the judge rule that possession is 9/10's of the law despite the agreement. It a toss up to me.

MissMorrigan -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 9:46:54 AM)
A verbal agreement would never hold up in court despite both persons agreeing to it b/c just as one person's word is provided, it can also be rescinded. The 'fibre' of this case is the intention with which the agreement was initially made. The intention was for both the plaintiff and the defendant to use the items for mutual enjoyment. Despite the initial outlay by the plaintiff, one person has sole possession of the items and it is also agreed that the defendent will never get to use them. Seriously, if you went out to dinner with someone and it was agreed that both persons would go 'dutch' but one decides to leave early and the remaining person ends up paying. Again, no court will force the defendant to pay for their share of the meal given that the meal is a nominal amount, so too are the items in question of the case LP provided. Morally, the 'nice' thing to do would be for the defendents in both cases to cough up, but again, there is no legal requirement for them to do so, certainly not in the UK. While Judge Joe and Judge Judy are court appointed judges, there are special dispensations for their televised courts. All persons appearing, defendent and plaintiff must sign agreements abiding by their rulings. Neither 'courts' have any real judicial empowerment and the shows act as an arbitrary medium to settle disputes. Take the above two cases to a civil court and whomever resides over those cases will state the same thing, "Chalk it up to experience, some people are arseholes, you unfortunately met with one."

beargonewild -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 10:34:39 AM)
That is true Sage, yet unless there was a third party witnessing the verbal agreement between the Dom and sub, then I believe the right claim falls on the person who purchased the merchandise.

SteelofUtah -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 10:39:58 AM)
Okay I just want to interject here because I think I am hearing a different story than some people are and would like to do a Little Dinner Time Theater. Dom A: Hey lets go Halvsies on some Dildos and Anal Plugs and Floggers and Rope. sub b: Okay I have the Internet and I can have then shipped here so I'll order them and have them shipped here and you pay me back your half. Dom A: That Sounds Good sub b: Okay I ordered those things, but I don't think you are the Dom for me and I don't think we should play together Dom A: WTF!! Okay I guess if that is what you want, Take Care. sub b: So when am I gunna see the money for your half of the toys? Dom A: You're Shitting me right? I mean I'm never gunna get to use them why in the hell would I pay for them. sub b: Because you agreed to and that is what a Real Dominant man would do if he gave his word. Dom A: You are out of your freaking mind if you think I am going to pay for something someone else is going to use on you. sub b: Why are you going back on your word how am I going to pay for these things? Dom A: Tough Shit. Maybe you should have thought about that before we agreed to buy these toys and you decided I wasn't the dom for you. sub b: Woe is me. Now If I am Mistaken then maybe I need to review the facts better, but if this is how it happened then you are out of your damn mind if you think I would be responsible for one penny of her payment. Steel

LinnaeaBorealis -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 12:34:53 PM)
That's certainly one way the interaction could have gone, Steel. But what if they picked out the toys together, she paid & had them delivered & he said he'd cover half the cost. Then when the toys get there, she uses them on cam with him & he gets off, then tells her she's not the sub for him after all & she's stuck with the toys & the whole bill. That seems to me to change things. That being said, however, I wouldn't bother trying to get my money back from Dom A. I would chalk it up to experience & move on with my life. And try to never be that foolish again. Get the $$ up front if someone is agreeing to go halvsies with you on something. If you don't & it's a verbal agreement, all you can do is ask that person to be honorable.

Lockit -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 12:52:14 PM)
LOL... this hits home directly here! Said things were not returned, not because I wanted the shit... I don't... what I wanted was an apology for the 'real' things done and an admitting to them all. So money in mail as soon as that happens... but that will be a cold day in hell! lol Might be interesting to see a judge on it! lol I did learn a lesson though... or three or four...lol No one is sending things to my house... we use what is on hand for either of us and until there is a fomal relationship, in person for some time... no buying toys! And if toys are bought... I want some that please me too! lol As for the case mentioned... no idea! lol

stella41b -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 2:27:08 PM)
I'm in the UK, so case adjourned until May 25.

beargonewild -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 2:51:28 PM)
Since I'm in Canada, I filed an injunction to have the case remanded until August 13.

hlen5 -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 3:46:27 PM)
A few things - - I would say that since Dom A agreed to go halvsies, Dom A should. The discussion of what should happen should the dynamic go south (before real time play occured) should have happened BEFORE the purchase. - If Dom A feels they got conned in order to pay for sub b's toys, suck it up, sub b. - Perhaps whoever could more afford it should bend a little in this instance. If this was a hardship for either party to afford, it serves as a good lesson to purchase things in person, TOGETHER. - I find it very interesting that the gender neutral situation has morphed to Dom/male - sub/female, especially in light of the OP.

beargonewild -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 4:26:04 PM)
Yet it really doesn't matter what the gender of the dom or the sub is, since either is easily interchangeable.

SteelofUtah -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 5:14:31 PM)
Ehhh I just took the more common expression of Dom and not Domme to mean that Dom A was a Male Dom. I am sure that it could go either way but I had to imagin it in my head and the Male Dom Female Sub is easier to accept so it is where my Brain always goes. This is not to say that any other combination is less acceptable just not my dynamic. As to the way Linea Put it, If that were the case I would still vote the way that I did, As far as I am concerned sub b is entitled to Nothing, verbal agreement or not, the relationship was disolved and sub b has the product it is only fair that they have the bill as well. This is only my opinion and I understand if it is not the popular one. Steel

Daddysredhead -> RE: BDSM small claims (3/20/2009 9:03:32 PM)
Just pondering the in's and out's of all this... Did the couple ever decide who would retain custody of the items that were to be purchased? Since the sub has them and paid for them, it seems like that's pretty much it. I was trying to think of what the judges where I work would say. If the Dom was to have custody if the items and the sub kept them, and paid for them 100%, then the Dom would probably be SOL, too.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Spam Policy

4.296875E-02