Money Moral Dilemma: Would you replace the shoes?

hstudent

wildthing01 wrote: »

sorry to be pedantic, but at no point in either the original nor current description are the words 'underground' or 'london' mentionned. it simply says 'train'. i do wish people would stop being so london-centric and understand that the rest of the world does exist.

I pointed that out in an earlier post but I think people just keep posting without looking at previous posts.

The fact is the story is based on something that happened to someone working at MSE Towers. It doesn't even say they were going to work when the incident occured - they could have been visting a relative in Cardiff for all we know.

Robgmun

zygurat789 wrote: »

Sounds like the opening scene of a romantic comedy

I know! I would take advantage of the situation, espically if said lady was pretty :cool:

epm-84

Linda21 wrote: »

He should definately not offer to buy new shoes - he should simply point out that if she has contents insurance on her home the policy should pay for replacement shoes

I disagree the contents insurance would have an excess. If the excess is £50 and the value of the shoes when new is £35 she can't claim.

If someone knocked over your cup of Costa Coffee by accident then you would hope that they replaced it or gave you the value of it. Why should it be any different because the shoes are of higher value than a coffee?

Is buying one shoe or giving a part contribution really a good option? At the start of the day the woman had a pair of shoes, she can't do a Mr Bean in the shoe shop and ask for one shoe that looks similar to the one that she's wearing!

However, if someone crashed in to the back of your car and that directly forced you to crash in to the car in front, then you shouldn't be held responsible, meaning if it was the direct result of someone behind that the shoe was lost then the person in question shouldn't buy the woman a new pair of shoes, otherwise he should.

I think it's unlikely that the woman would be a close shoe size to the man but if they were the man should be a gentleman and offer to lend her his shoes until she can buy a new pair, but possibly even two sizes too big is better than a shoe-less foot in winter.

anyfreebies

epm-84 wrote: »

I think it's unlikely that the woman would be a close shoe size to the man but if they were the man should be a gentleman and offer to lend her his shoes until she can buy a new pair, but possibly even two sizes too big is better than a shoe-less foot in winter.

Not a bad idea.

lorietta

It does seem like an odd thing to happen, however, somone once stepped on the back of my boot and the entire sole came away!

If the ground was wet (or there was snow or ice) it would be really unpleasant for her to have to walk around with no shoes on (and possibly dangerous). In these conditions I definately would make sure she didn't have to get wet feet! I don't know if I would buy her new shoes, maybe a £5 pair from primark to see her through the day if the shoe couldn't be retrieved. It might be run over by the train and ruined.

If I was in the woman's position and lost a shoe, I hope someone would try and help me, even if it was a sandle or whatever and "not suitable" I'd still have to walk around with no shoes on!

epm-84

lorietta wrote: »

It does seem like an odd thing to happen, however, somone once stepped on the back of my boot and the entire sole came away!

Unless they were old or sold as cheap boots for a few pounds that does sound strange unless the person who stood on them was wearing hard builders boots or something like that.