Money Moral Dilemma: Would you replace the shoes?

swfcjambo

Talent wrote: »

You could be a gentleman (or a laydee) and get off with her.

A bit beyond the call of duty, surely?:T

hstudent

Robothell wrote: »

Having said that it would be a good scam to get a new pair of shoes, just flicking it off in a crowd and blaming one of the many people around you - are we sure the heel wasn't broken on the "lost" shoe?

Yes it does sound like something off 'The Real Hustle' Jess walks on to the train ahead of the victim, Alex pushes the victim from behind and Paul's on the train and blames the victim.

hstudent

camaj wrote: »

The fact that it came off by someone stepping on it indicates it was insufficiently secured.

I think we need to be told what type of shoes they were - you only have to see how many women have shoes that just fall off when they're on a night out - if it's a type that fall off easily then the woman shouldn't have be wearing them while travelling on a crowded public transport network it'd be her own fault.

We also don't know what the woman's financial or shoe situation is - if she's left with one single shoe that's suitable for work and doesn't have much money then the man could offer an interest free loan for a new pair even if he wasn't in the wrong.

hstudent

aloiseb wrote: »

This is the London underground we are talking about here, right?

The idea is it's hypothtical but is based on a real situation, so there isn't really any point in saying about people's attitudes on the London underground.

Whether the shoe can be recovered depends on a number of things:
1. It hasn't been destroyed by the train you are on moving off.
2. Another train could destroy it in the mean time.
3. If the train was running on third rail electrics i.e. London Underground, Merseyrail, Southeastern then anyone going on to the line could risk death unless electrics are first switched off.

Muffcat

hstudent wrote: »

The idea is it's hypothtical but is based on a real situation, so there isn't really any point in saying about people's attitudes on the London underground.

Whether the shoe can be recovered depends on a number of things:
1. It hasn't been destroyed by the train you are on moving off.
2. Another train could destroy it in the mean time.
3. If the train was running on third rail electrics i.e. London Underground, Merseyrail, Southeastern then anyone going on to the line could risk death unless electrics are first switched off.

I agree, I doubt whether it would be possible to retrieve the shoe or whether it would even be worth trying and Peter buying her a new pair isn't going to solve the immediate problem of going hoppity-hop on one shoe to the nearest shop or of actually finding a pair to fit quite quickly. Believe me, as most women will tell you it isn't that easy! But to answer the question - presumably this woman has some insurance cover for personal possessions, so Peter definitely should not pay, and if she hasn't it will be a salutary lesson.

niccatw

mishelly wrote: »

When they get off at their destination he should give her a piggy back to the shoe shop and they can split the cost of a pair of shoes 50/50. He only damaged one shoe. Just a pair for the day, not a stupidly expensive pair.

This is my favourite idea! I'd be grinning all day if I saw the pair of them on the way to nearest shose shop - more so if they were all suited up.

Desn't seem likely if she was furious and demanding new shoes tough.

Life's too short, it's only a shoe, there are bigger things to worry about. If it were me, given I'm trying not to spend money, I'd be grateful if Peter offered to buy me a pair of shoes for the day, but I'd be suggesting the nearest charity shop. I certainly wouldn't expect him to offer though. Though I would be miffed if he didn't even have the courtesy to profusely apologise

Hels28

Let's say, for arguments sake, she is not going to work. Are shoes that might still easily come off inappropriate to be worn on a train. She could be going to ladies day at Royal Ascot. Do you suggest that she carries her Jimmy Choos in a bag and then carries her trainers at the races? I don't think so.

However, insurance is a good idea - but that doesn't fix the immediate problem of having only one shoe.

zeegoman

Unfortunate accident no one's fault. A bit of middle class angst being displayed here even to consider this, I think. This is a no chancer, unless of course.........! (sexist pig)

paul2hoots

Absolutely not. Rather tough but in such a situation she could even consider asking London Underground to replace them as they could not provide a train with adequate room for passengers. He could argue that if she had proper fitting shoes with laces that would stay on the foot in such circumstances she wouldn't be in the position she now finds herself.

hstudent

Hels28 wrote: »

Let's say, for arguments sake, she is not going to work. Are shoes that might still easily come off inappropriate to be worn on a train. She could be going to ladies day at Royal Ascot. Do you suggest that she carries her Jimmy Choos in a bag and then carries her trainers at the races? I don't think so.

If it's her decision to get on a train with shoes that would easily fall off then she should accept the consequences if they fall off. If there's horse racing on then you should expect trains and stations to be packed - saying she may be wearing shoes worth something like £400 that could easily fall off would make her sound either a bit stupid or that she has all the money in the world.