Dry Cleaners/Cobblers lost 1 boot

wealdroam

naedanger wrote: »

It would give a fair indication of their value to someone other than their original owner but not the fair value to the owner.

So how would you arrive at a fair value to the owner?

firefox1956

dacouch wrote: »

Nottinghill...

Ah that explains it...........:D

naedanger

wealdroam wrote: »

And why should she be able to buy new again?

She has had the use of the boots for some time, we aren't told how long, so should she have had that use for nothing?

As you said, buying second hand boots may not be acceptable. This indicates to me that the value of the boots depreciated dramatically once worn.

At a guess, a £550 pair of boots are probably worth less than £100 after (say) a month's wearing, and that is the amount of the OP's loss.

The fact that the value of boots depreciated dramatically is exactly why the second hand value is not a good guide to the op's loss.

If the op had bought the boots second hand then I agree the value to them (and so their loss) would have been the £100 in your example. However if the op paid £550 and the shop lost them a month later I don't think a court would accept that the op's loss was only £100. (If the op was unwilling to save £450 by buying second hand the first time it shows the value to them was more than the second hand price.)

I would expect the loss to be put closer to £550 less a reduction (probably just straight line) for the usage they have already had.

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

The fact that the value of boots depreciated dramatically is exactly why the second hand value is not a good guide to the op's loss.

If the op had bought the boots second hand then I agree the value to them (and so their loss) would have been the £100 in your example. However if the op paid £550 and the shop lost them a month later I don't think a court would accept that the op's loss was only £100. (If the op was unwilling to save £450 by buying second hand the first time it shows the value to them was more than the second hand price.)

I would expect the loss to be put closer to £550 less a reduction (probably just straight line) for the usage they have already had.

This is about dry cleaning but the same principles apply:

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/tradingstandards/tradingstandards-consumer/goodsandservices-consumers/tsguide-dry-cleaning.htm

If the cleaner has damaged your item of clothing and it can be repaired, he should arrange the repair or pay for the cost of repair elsewhere. If your item of clothing has been damaged and cannot be repaired, you may be entitled to claim the current value of the item of clothing from the cleaner. Generally, you are not entitled to claim the full replacement value of the item as it is unlikely to have been brand new at the time of cleaning. Therefore you would be claiming a refund less any reasonable usage you have had from the item.

The general rule for damages on chattels that cannot be repaired is that where there is a second hand market, your loss is the market value.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

This is about dry cleaning but the same principles apply:

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/tradingstandards/tradingstandards-consumer/goodsandservices-consumers/tsguide-dry-cleaning.htm



The general rule for damages on chattels that cannot be repaired is that where there is a second hand market, your loss is the market value.

The quote you give is saying something different from your statement of the general rule underneath.

The quote says "Generally, you are not entitled to claim the full replacement value of the item as it is unlikely to have been brand new at the time of cleaning. Therefore you would be claiming a refund less any reasonable usage you have had from the item." To me that is more or less the same as what I have said.

paddyrg

Second hand footwear is less of a big gross thing than people imagine - the only footwear people buy secondhand is going to be well made and barely worn, not a knackered pair of shoezone fake uggs.

shaun_from_Africa

paddyrg wrote: »

the only footwear people buy secondhand is going to be well made and barely worn, not a knackered pair of shoezone fake uggs.

Are you sure!!


http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=high+heeled+shoe++s+well+worn&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xhigh+heeled+shoes+well+worn.TRS0&_nkw=high+heeled+shoes+well+worn&_sacat=0

powerful_Rogue

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Are you sure!!


http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=high+heeled+shoe++s+well+worn&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xhigh+heeled+shoes+well+worn.TRS0&_nkw=high+heeled+shoes+well+worn&_sacat=0

I've read about this before., I think most of these listings are reaching out to people they may have a fetish. Just clicking onto one of the links and looking at other items for sale you see the seller also listing "Used tights".

You'll also notice how a lot of the sellers listing these used/worn shoes include many photos of their feet as well.

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

The quote you give is saying something different from your statement of the general rule underneath.

The quote says "Generally, you are not entitled to claim the full replacement value of the item as it is unlikely to have been brand new at the time of cleaning. Therefore you would be claiming a refund less any reasonable usage you have had from the item." To me that is more or less the same as what I have said.

And right before that it says you're entitled to their current value. Not the value from new.

The initial purpose of damages is to put a person in near as position as possible financially to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. As lord atkinson said, damages are to compensate the injured party rather than to punish the party in breach.

Its not inconsistent with the general rule. There are very few scenarios where you are entitled to more than the market value (although its technically the market value minus any salvage value but I dont think 1 boot holds any salvage value) and where betterment will be overlooked. Such as when buildings are destroyed and need rebuilt.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

And right before that it says you're entitled to their current value. Not the value from new.

Yes it says "current value" however it then goes on to say how to determine the current value and what it says is much closer to what I have said than the second hand value. (It would have been very easy to say the "current value" is the value the item would obtain on the second hand market but it did not say that - it said something quite different.)

The initial purpose of damages is to put a person in near as position as possible financially to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. As lord atkinson said, damages are to compensate the injured party rather than to punish the party in breach.

I completely agree the damages should be to compensate the injured party rather than punish the party in breach. But what you are ignoring is that buyers pay a premium for a new item (i.e. having an item that only ever belonged to them). If you simply pay the second hand value then the injured party is losing out financially - they paid handsomely for the new item premium and are losing what that premium provided if you simply give them a second hand item.

Using the hypothetical example quoted earlier - boots value new = £550, value second hand but in near mint condition = £100. A buyer is willing to pay a large premium (here £450) for the item having never been owned by another party. However if they were told the item would be replaced a few days later with the near new item (value £100) do you still think they would still pay £550 for the new item when they would only have the new item for a few days (or would they just pay the £100 for the near new item)?

Its not inconsistent with the general rule.

It is inconsistent. If the wording had meant second hand value then that is what it would have said (in my view).

There are very few scenarios where you are entitled to more than the market value (although its technically the market value minus any salvage value but I dont think 1 boot holds any salvage value) and where betterment will be overlooked. Such as when buildings are destroyed and need rebuilt.

What is the case in other scenarios is irrelevant here.