Business Law - Accession.

[Dozyproductions]

I'm taking business law and, either by lack of sleep or having my brain all fizzed out, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around 'good faith' accessions. As long as the good faith accession, even if not known by the original owner, has increased the property value substantially there is a chance the title of ownership could move to the improver.

Now the books 'bad faith' example says pretty much a car thief could not seek compensation if he bought brand new tires for the car he stole if the car was ever returned to the owner. I get that but I need an example of the good faith.

Right now my train of thought is you can improve anything but you can't seek compensation unless the original owner has agreed to it. What if some one just walked up to one of our cars, while we were on vacation, and just resprayed it right there on the street (after constructing a well ventilated and clean paint booth ;) ). Could he really seek compensation/ownership since a respray would most likely double the value of our e30's?

So lawyers of r3v, sup?

[Dozyproductions]

same thing I guess for gratuitous bailments or good Samaritan stuff like if you were unconscious and a doctor just so happened to save your life, he has the right for reimbursement.

I love reading up on law but some of this simple stuff doesn't seem to be the most practical.

[Kershaw]

im going to go around swapping 17" BBS RS' on stock e30s and demanding ownership.

[Dozyproductions]

Well you would be required to pay fair market value is the only bummer. So you might have to come up with a couple of peanuts.

[Rsully70sev]

You're on the right track, but a little off. Your second example about the respray is the same as the first one with the tires, they are both trespassers/theives therefore they can not seek compensation.

It's more like...

You go on vacation, and you hire someone to build you a deck while you're away. While he's building the deck, he realizes the siding of your house has dry rot. While he hasn't consulted you first, he just goes ahead and does it while he's there. In this instance, he could try to recover building cost/labor etc. Because he did it out of good faith and not in contract you [the owner] could always argue that you didn't want or need it in the first place.

In these cases, the courts almost ALWAYS rule on the owners side.

I mean hey, if you take your E30 to a mechanic for an oil change, and they decide you need tranny fluid, diff fluid, and turn signal fluid, and do it out of good faith, are you responsible for the additional cost if you didn't agree to it? No.

HOWEVER, if you take your car to a mechanic, and AGREE on such parts, then in the end can't afford it. Yes they can sue or claim ownership of your vehicle.

[Dozyproductions]

lolololol yup my brain is fizzing. Thank you for clearing that one up mate.

[Rsully70sev]

Of course, glad to help. Finals are brain melters lol!

[wesinator]

Ross Sullivan, You're really one to give advice on fucking ethics, the law, or anything. You ripped me off dude. I want everyone to know the truth. See the attached pictures of Ross's Ebay ad and then the actual shoes he sent. Does the term "never worn" mean anything to you? Thanks. Also here is the letter he sent me:

Hm, I'll have to disagree with you.

These shoes brand new are $120. So at "half their life" as you describe them (which they are not) that would place their value at around $65. In which you paid. I didn't ship them, my brother did. I'm not sure why you're so unsatisfied with them, they are in perfect condition and brand new purchased at the Nike outlet in vacaville. Take it up with them for their poor condition? Being a self proclaimed "eBay" and "Nike" expert, you should know this. You seem to be one of "those" eBay people-[nuts] and I'd rather not deal with you, your negativity or foul language anymore.

The add clearly says no refunds, I'm sorry you're not satisfied with them.



Sent from my iPhone

On May 7, 2011, at 3:07 PM, "Wesley Byrd" <bornzrun@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Ross Sullivan:
WTF? You listed these shoes as new. They are nowhere near new and don’t even try to say they are. Having owned 15-20 pairs of these, I am an expert in this type of shoe and these have been worn and worn and worn. I estimated they’ve been worn at least 20 times, probably more. The inner soles are close to being worn out.
The way I see it, we can settle this one of two ways:
1. You pay a full refund including shipping both ways and I’ll send them back to you.
2. At about ½ of their life used up, they are only worth about half of what I paid you for them. I want a refund of $30.
Can you please respond which is your preference.
Thanks,
Wes Byrd (pennypincherman)

[Dozyproductions]

ugh, not in my thread too.

[Rsully70sev]

Apologies friend. I'm shocked someone hasn't dropped the hammer yet.

[Dozyproductions]

its okay ;)