Hypothetical Scenario to aid debate on a legal situation

omnithanos

Let’s say I owned 6 Mars Bars, which I kept in my gym locker, and Ron Keane came along claiming he was told he could use my locker by a third party and I could no longer have access to it. He eats one of my Mars Bars without asking (he was witnessed and we have CCTV evidence to prove this) and he buys a replacement Mars Bar and puts it in my locker. Then Neal Quinn offers Ron Keane €3 for the 6 Mars Bars so Ron Keane comes to me and says someone has offered €3 for all the Mars Bars in your locker but I bought one of them so I’m only giving you €2.50. We have established that 6 Mars Bars are valued at €3 and that I had 6 Mars Bars in my locker when Ron Keane gained access to it so how much should Ron Keane pay me?

Ron Keane further says that if I do not accept €2.50 for the Mars Bars belonging to me IN the locker he will put MY Mars Bars in Jester McAteer’s locker for safe keeping and Jester McAteer charges 25 cent a day for storage. If I do not accept Ron Keane’s offer I would still be at the loss of a Mars Bar as only 5 of my Mars Bars would be placed in Jester McAteer’s locker and I would have to pay for the privilege. So I agree to sell MY Mars Bars IN the locker to Ron Keane for €2.50. Does this agreement to sell my remaining 5 Mars Bars have anything to do with the Mars Bar that Ron Keane had already eaten?

Based on the above do you consider that Ron Keane still owes me 50 cent for the missing Mars Bar?

Discalimer: Any Similarity to Persons Living or Dead Is Purely Coincidental

234

omnithanos wrote: »

Let’s say I owned 6 Mars Bars, which I kept in my gym locker, and Ron Keane came along claiming he was told he could use my locker by a third party and I could no longer have access to it. He eats one of my Mars Bars without asking (he was witnessed and we have CCTV evidence to prove this) and he buys a replacement Mars Bar and puts it in my locker. Then Neal Quinn offers Ron Keane €3 for the 6 Mars Bars so Ron Keane comes to me and says someone has offered €3 for all the Mars Bars in your locker but I bought one of them so I’m only giving you €2.50. We have established that 6 Mars Bars are valued at €3 and that I had 6 Mars Bars in my locker when Ron Keane gained access to it so how much should Ron Keane pay me?

Ron Keane further says that if I do not accept €2.50 for the Mars Bars belonging to me IN the locker he will put MY Mars Bars in Jester McAteer’s locker for safe keeping and Jester McAteer charges 25 cent a day for storage. If I do not accept Ron Keane’s offer I would still be at the loss of a Mars Bar as only 5 of my Mars Bars would be placed in Jester McAteer’s locker and I would have to pay for the privilege. So I agree to sell MY Mars Bars IN the locker to Ron Keane for €2.50. Does this agreement to sell my remaining 5 Mars Bars have anything to do with the Mars Bar that Ron Keane had already eaten?

Based on the above do you consider that Ron Keane still owes me 50 cent for the missing Mars Bar?

Discalimer: Any Similarity to Persons Living or Dead Is Purely Coincidental

I presume that you only want the civil rather than the criminal answer.

First, he stole your Mars bar and converted it to his use. This would entitle you to sue for compensation.

For the replacement Mars bar, this will depend. If you accept it in settlement of your claim for conversion then you own it and you surrender your claim. The alternative is that he was gifting it to you. Either way, it's yours and he had no continuing proprietary interest in it.

For the other bars, he has again converted them to his own use, so you can sue to get them back. If you agree to let him sell them then you are transforming it into a bailment situation as he has them with your permission. If you agree to sell then the price is simply a matter for agreement. He still has no claim to the replacement bar.

Finally, if he, without your permission, puts the bars in another locker there is no way in which you can be held liable for storage costs. Unless he acts with your permission there can be no question of a contract arising (there may be an ostensible authority argument here, but let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be). If anybody will be liable for the storage costs it's him.

omnithanos

Thank you for your reply and thank you for taking my question seriously.

The locker represents my property
Mr. Keane represents the Receiver
and the Mars bars represent the contents of the property

The Receiver did not eat a fifth of my contents but he had them disposed of in a skip without asking my consent as they were being stored on the corridors of the Apartments after the Receivers negligence had resulted in the building being flooded. He did not claim insurance for this flooding either because he was negligent or because he did not have insurance. I do not have CCTV footage of the dumping but I did witness and obtain photographic evidence of it and the storage of the contents on the corridors and out the back of the building in the month prior to the dumping.

The Receiver said I would not get the full valuation figure for the contents as his agents had put a certain amount in. Before I agreed the amount for my REMAINING contents (it being impossible to sell or store those items which were previously removed) I brought it to their attention that as the Apartment block was fully occupied when the Receiver took over management it was therefore fully furnished and that those items put in by the Receiver's agents only replaced items belonging to me.

I was told that if I did not agree to the amount offered and collect the cheque within approximately 3 days I could either arrange to collect my contents or they would be stored at my expense so I felt I had no option but to accept the amount offered which I felt was fair enough for four fifths of my contents. A schedule of contents was attached to my receipt, such schedule could not have included those contents belonging to me which had already been removed previously as they were not there so I don't see how they could be included in the sale.

After I lodged my cheque I asked for compensation for the contents which had been removed without my consent and I was told I had already been dealt with. I feel the solicitor for the Receiver is taking an unfair advantage over me in favour of his client and that I should receive compensation.

234

omnithanos wrote: »

Thank you for your reply and thank you for taking my question seriously.

The locker represents my property
Mr. Keane represents the Receiver
and the Mars bars represent the contents of the property

My answer was based on the assumption that this was an entirely fictional situation. The answer I have given is definitely not applicable to a situation involving a receiver being appointed over property, so please don't construe the above as legal advice.

omnithanos

Certainly not.

littlemac1980

I'd say in relation to the mars bar issue that you'd have to check the situation vis-a-vis your obligation to remove the mars bars, if I had a locker in a gym, and at the end of my use of it, it was given to someone else to use, then I'd say there's an obligation on me to ensure it is emptied of my mars bars before its handed over, otherwise I'm still using it.

I really think you shouldn't be bringing so many mars bars to the gym anyway, it defeats the purpose of going to the gym in the first place.

Mr. Incognito

Oh Dear Lord

This is your third thread on this nonsense.

You are comparing commercial property repossession to the theft of mars bars.

When you buy with borrowed money and the security is repossessed you own NOTHING. NADA. NOWT.

You really are not getting the message here at all.

omnithanos

No I'm not, I'm comparing the unlawful disposal of property without permission to somebody eating somebody's Mars bar without permission. What's wrong with that analogy?

The contents weren't part of the security.

whippet

omnithanos wrote: »

No I'm not, I'm comparing the unlawful disposal of property without permission to somebody eating somebody's Mars bar without permission. What's wrong with that analogy?

The contents weren't part of the security.

I can really see now why you don't want to deal with solicitors, as they tend to talk in reality and you don't seem to like the reality.

omnithanos

Making broad generalisations about Solicitors are we?

The reality is that the contents remained in my ownership but a portion of them were dumped without my consent.

What's unreal about saying that?

I explained my position with my own Solicitor on the other thread where I also thanked you for your help.

omnithanos

Two typos there, apologies.

Graham

Before a proper answer can be given, can you advise:

Was the initial acquisition of the mars bars financed by a loan from a financial institution? Maybe a mortgage from Piggy Bank?
Was this loan secured by means of a charge against the aforementioned confections?
Have payments been made for the tasty treats as per the agreed schedule?
Was Ron Keane appointed by a receiver to recover said mars bars as a result of non-payment, in which case Ron would probably be entitled to a payment for his services that will unfortunately come out of the balance of mars bars.

Depending on your answers to the above you may or may not be entitled to buttons as compensation.

Pat Mustard

omnithanos wrote: »

The locker represents my property
Mr. Keane represents the Receiver
and the Mars bars represent the contents of the property

Mod:

This is not a hypothetical situation.

Legal advice is not allowed.

omnithanos, please do not open any further threads on this topic, or any further threads that seek legal advice, masquerading as hypothetical discussion.

Thread closed.