Do I need to pay?

BrentMeister

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

It's a perfectly valid example; we are talking about unsolicited services being performed, not just about window cleaners.

Not in the slightest. We're discussing the window cleaner here, not other spurious examples.

BrentMeister

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

No you haven't explained. You've just said you think it is. You don't seem to get that you have to introduce reasons for your opinion. Just saying "I'm entitled to my opinion but I don't know why I have it" doesn't cut it unless you are on the Jeremy Vine show.

That you would have offered him something is NOT your opinion. That's a fact. You control your actions.

Your opinion was that it is mean NOT to offer him something.

This is getting very tedious and slightly boring now. I've made my reasons perfectly clear, however because for some reason you cant/wont accept that, were going round in circles.

I would have paid/contributed something, you wouldnt have.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

BrentMeister wrote: »

Not in the slightest. We're discussing the window cleaner here, not other spurious examples.

So if a window cleaner makes a honest mistake it would be mean not to pay him, but if any other tradesman makes an honest mistake, it's fine? Window cleaners are somehow different?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

BrentMeister wrote: »

This is getting very tedious and slightly boring now. I've made my reasons perfectly clear, however because for some reason you cant/wont accept that, were going round in circles.

I would have paid/contributed something, you wouldnt have.

No you haven't made your reasons clear. WHY should anyone pay because someone else made a mistake, when they have gained no benefit from any unsolicited goods or service? More importantly, WHY is it "mean" not to pay?


Just saying "I would" is not a reason.

BrentMeister

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

So if a window cleaner makes a honest mistake it would be mean not to pay him, but if any other tradesman makes an honest mistake, it's fine? Window cleaners are somehow different?

This is the part you seem to fail to understand. The window cleaner did not make a mistake, the previous occupants did.

BrentMeister

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

No you haven't made your reasons clear. WHY should anyone pay because someone else made a mistake, when they have gained no benefit from any unsolicited goods or service? More importantly, WHY is it "mean" not to pay?


Just saying "I would" is not a reason.

So no-one benefits from having clean windows?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

BrentMeister wrote: »

This is the part you seem to fail to understand. The window cleaner did not make a mistake, the previous occupants did.

Immaterial. It wasn't the occupier.

BrentMeister

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Immaterial. It wasn't the occupier.

Clearly it isnt immaterial. If the previous occupants had cancelled, then the window cleaner would not have cleaned the windows.

Wheras in the original post, the bin cleaners were chancers, the window cleaner wasnt.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

BrentMeister wrote: »

So no-one benefits from having clean windows?

For the fourth time, I don't. I don't care.

Is your argument that only people who feel they DO benefit from clean windows are "mean" not to pay?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

BrentMeister wrote: »

Clearly it isnt immaterial. If the previous occupants had cancelled, then the window cleaner would not have cleaned the windows.

Wheras in the original post, the bin cleaners were chancers, the window cleaner wasnt.

Immaterial. it wasn't the occupier's mistake. Someone else's mistake places no moral obligation on an unconnected person.