Found a big chunk of cash in a cashpoint...

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

Yes if you borrow £10 there is civil liability but no civil wrong - because its wouldn't be an action founded on tort it would be founded on contract.

This illustrates a typical problem with way you respond. In the previous post you equated a civil liability with a civil wrong. That meant we had to have a detour to show the two are not synonymous. So it was just a distraction. In the above you are now repeating the point I made to show tort requires more than a civil liability.

You have a duty of care to your neighbour. Who is your neighbour is whoever should be in reasonable contemplation at the time as being affected by your act/omission. You are in breach of that duty if you fail to meet the standard of a reasonable person. As the links I provided earlier state, whats reasonable depends on the amount found and cirumstances (just as finding a pen most people wouldnt bother tracing the owner but a phone they would). £1 and most people would keep it. But more substantial amounts, the reasonable person would hand those in/try and trace the owner.

This illustrates another problem. Lots of distraction. I am not disputing the above

Therefore if you dont take reasonable steps, you've failed to meet the standard of a reasonable person and are in breach of duty of care. Thus action founded on tort.

Now the crux. We are not talking about the situation where someone does not take reason steps.

You said "OP needs to take reasonable steps to find the owner and the owner has 6 years to chase for their money." You are clearly talking about the situation where the op has taken reasonable steps. In which case there is no civil wrong and no tort.

As I said initially, it really is no different to involuntary bailee - theres a duty of care to look after the items and take reasonable steps to trace its owner.

This (the situation being no different to involuntary bailee) is a separate point, which I also doubt is as simple as you think. However it is also nothing to do with tort.

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

This illustrates a typical problem with way you respond. In the previous post you equated a civil liability with a civil wrong. That meant we had to have a detour to show the two are not synonymous. So it was just a distraction. In the above you are now repeating the point I made to show tort requires more than a civil liability.


This illustrates another problem. Lots of distraction. I am not disputing the above


Now the crux. We are not talking about the situation where someone does not take reason steps.

You said "OP needs to take reasonable steps to find the owner and the owner has 6 years to chase for their money." You are clearly taking about the situation where the op has taken reasonable steps. In which case there is no civil wrong and no tort.

This is a separate point, which I also doubt is as simple as you think. However it is nothing also nothing to do with tort.

Why was I clearly talking about a situation where they had taken reasonable steps? Especially when my next line after that was about taking reasonable steps to diminish that liability! The part you quote says nothing more than a duty to take reasonable steps exists (whether it is being upheld or not).

Bod managed to understand perfectly what I meant. Perhaps just consider for a moment that the issue isn't with my explanation but rather your understanding of it.

I've explained fully above why it would be an action founded on tort. Having a valid defence does not stop a claim being raised in court and nor does it change the cause of action. The only thing it affects is the chances of courts finding in your favour.

Edit: Involuntary bailee comes from the Tort (interference with goods) act btw. So please explain why you think it has nothing to do with tort?

[Deleted User]

You guys should take your "conversation" to private message...

unholyangel

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You guys should take your "conversation" to private message...

Dont worry, its not going on much longer.

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

Dont worry, its not going on much longer.

Cool,

are you finally going to admit you made a mistake so we can draw this thread to a close

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

Why was I clearly talking about a situation where they had taken reasonable steps? Especially when my next line after that was about taking reasonable steps to diminish that liability! The part you quote says nothing more than a duty to take reasonable steps exists (whether it is being upheld or not).

I will quote your full text:

"Really, its no different to any other involuntary bailee situation. OP needs to take reasonable steps to find the owner and the owner has 6 years to chase for their money.

OP can shorten this by handing it to the police."

I read that to

"OP needs to take reasonable steps to find the owner and [in that case] the owner has 6 years to chase for their money.

OP can shorten this by handing to the police."

Whereas I should have read that to be:

"The op needs to take reasonable steps to find the owner [[STRIKE]and[/STRIKE] otherwise] the owner has 6 years to chase for their money.

If the op takes reasonable steps, which requires handing to the police, then the op has less than 6 years to chase for their money."

Using "and" as a synonym for otherwise is bound to cause confusion.

Le_Kirk

OP, have you taken any of the advice from this thread and what have you decided to do and have you done it?

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

Using "and" as a synonym for otherwise is bound to cause confusion.

You cannot be serious.

And now I am going to pm you because while a debate on whether tort applies might be relevant, a discussion on the many different uses of the word "and" is definitely not

hollydays

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

How has this thread reached 72 responses? The Op already had very detailed advice and responses on page one of this thread, yet here we are on page #4!:eek:

There are certain forum members who like to constantly pick arguments, selectively , and I don't mean unholyangel. It's very transparent and incredibly tiresome .

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

You cannot be serious.

And now I am going to pm you because while a debate on whether tort applies might be relevant, a discussion on the many different uses of the word "and" is definitely not

Or you could just admit you made a mistake in your original post and thus end the debate :wall::wall::wall::wall: