Help John and I resolve our dispute

[CJS]

Social interaction 101

[Barterer]

This is an interesting dispute, and the principles that have come into play here can be useful for resolving all sorts of borrowings gone bad.  The moral of the story seems to be "don't lend items of unpredictable life without prior agreement on what to do when the thing fails."   This might include prior agreement that Dave would return the camera fully functional no matter what the reason or expense, or offset that idea with a small payment for a warranty or insurance, or agree beforehand that the "Tuath" will resolve it, etc. 

Absent any prior agreement, I think the lender has taken the risk that he will absorb any effects of "normal wear & tear" on his property, and has agreed to shoulder those unknown effects, with no strings attached to the borrower.  But in the case of negligence by the borrower, the borrower should absorb the cost.

The person who loans out an item is essentially giving away part of that item's life, which is a commodity. As commodities go, appliance life is one that's extremely difficult to estimate the quantity of.  And electronics especially.. haha.. they don't exactly have a "gas guage" that shows remaining life.  The thing can chug along forever or just go "poof" like the camera.

Notice I say appliance LIFE is the commodity.  The appliance is the thing that generates the commodity and is not the commodity itself.  John thought there was more of it to give away than the camera was capable of delivering.  Surely he realizes that a camera's life is finite and does not expect the camera to be returned in full pre-borrowed condition.  But because it sucks so bad that the camera's service life fell off a cliff, it's tempting for John to shift to a sort of binary working/not working idea.. that an appliance is the commodity, that goes from 100% value to nothing instantly.  Functionally it did, but keep in mind that with each use, the machine takes another step closer to death.  John agreed to let Dave use up some of those steps, but did not realize the last one would come so soon.  So now he'd accept a working camera that could be right at the beginning of years of service, or just about to croak.  He lost one electronics-gamble and would like another, at no additional cost. 

Then there's the question of negligence.  That would have been a valid basis for Dave to have to replace or repair the camera, but John has not established negligence.  Abuse of a camera is usually evident in the form of dings, scratches, loose/tweaked doors and latches that hold the battery and storage media.  I suppose Dave could have abused the camera in less obvious ways such as leaving it in a hot car or in wet conditions, but the onus would still be on John to show negligence on Dave's part.  Mr. Ridley has been making videos for several years and I think it's reasonable to assume he can work a camera (similar to one he owns) without abusing it.  This, along with the admitted facts that John did not know the number of hours/remaining life on the camera or if the preexisting damage to it was cosmetic or not, leads one to believe that Ridley did not abuse the camera.  Based on what's been posted here, it looks like the camera just happened to crap out on his watch.

Other side-issues, like paying money Vs. direct replacement, the non-urgency of resolution, conversational snubs/bullying, etc. in my opinion are all beside the point.  Looking at the factors that DO matter, lead me to think Dave has no responsibility to fix or replace the camera. 

The fact that Dave has tried to work out mutually beneficial solutions suggests that he is willing to go one better than just following the best analysis he can get from a mediator, and seems to value John's satisfaction with the outcome. In other words, this is not as simple as just figuring out who owes what, it is also important that both parties agree with all the points that lead to the conclusion, so nobody feels bludgeoned by substandard arguments or that they benefited from the process in a way that cost them a friend. Considering that, a good solution might be for John and Dave to go halves on a compatible Ebay camera from which John can get a new camera or tape eject assembly, and Dave can get a spare battery, charger or whatever.

[lildog]

Here's my 2 cents on this one...

Neither John nor Dave made any mention of known flaws in the camera prior to the loan.  Therefor is is assumed that the camera was in good working condition when Dave assumed temporary possession of it. 

Given that and given the fact that John didn't just dismiss the fact it was broken upon return, Dave therefor becomes responsible to fix or replace the camera.

It shouldn't be John's responsibility to have to find a place to have it fixed or hunt down a replacement since he didn't break it so money isn't the issue.

My "ruling" is that Dave needs to either take the camera to a repair shop and have it fixed or to purchase a replacement of the same make and type or if John agrees a different make or model of equal or better quality but the later would rely on John's agreement (John may be very attached to that make or brand for some reason).

[Barterer]

I don't see how the obligation was created for Dave to fix/replace the camera, just because it quit working while he was using it.  If he wants to be a nice guy, sure. If he actively broke it, then yeah he absolutely should fix it.   

But the idea that Dave has an obligation to fix the camera in this case is a slippery slope.  Lots of electrical problems are intermittent. What's to prevent someone from lending out a device they know is flaky, then demanding a replacement when it quits on the borrower?  I am not saying that's the case here, I'm saying it's not a good idea to set that precedent.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

The love between brothers should trump all this pecuniary bickering. I am surprised that this still is unresolved. Both parties should do or forgive more than they think is due just to be sports in the "big picture".

[KBCraig]

The love between brothers should trump all this pecuniary bickering. I am surprised that this still is unresolved. Both parties should do or forgive more than they think is due just to be sports in the "big picture".

That would be nice, but when opinions differ, one man's "reasonable request" becomes another man's "unreasonable demand".

The point of public mediation is to help them settle that part of the dispute. Once the financial matter is laid to rest, the same support system can help them restore friendship.

[John]

SONY HANDYCAM DCR-HC38 2000x DIGITAL ZOOM
Carl Zeiss Lens 40x Optical Zoom

[Dave Ridley]

Lil I can see where you're coming from but with all the pages of discussion I'm guessing you may have easily missed a couple details.

The status of the camera eject mechanism was either flaky when I got the camera or shortly after; I can't remember....certainly I do not believe with any certainty it was in full working condition when I got it.   I would not have this uncertainty if John had brought the issue up without waiting so long.  And as I've indicated above, I didn't break it it just stopped working while I was using it.  Would you pay for 2 grand worth of repairs if you were idling a friend's borrowed car and  its engine massively seized up over some wear and tear issue?

You also are indicating that you are under the impression John took issue with the camera's status when I returned it.  He didn't.  He took issue with it a year later, even though I fully informed him of the situation in 2009. Nevertheless I appreciate you weighing in, as each new post gives us a better sense what we should do.  That is, if both of us are open minded and prepared to make honorable concessions.  I've made three so far and am concerned that John has made none.   That is not normally considered acceptable in mediation environments.  Stubbornness is only a virtue when you are right.

Thank you however for the make/model data, John.

[lildog]

The status of the camera eject mechanism was either flaky when I got the camera or shortly after; I can't remember....certainly I do not believe with any certainty it was in full working condition when I got it.   I would not have this uncertainty if John had brought the issue up without waiting so long.

I don't see the length of time before he brought it up as relevant.  He may not have noticed the problems right away.  In my opinion this would be like someone borrowing a classic car just before winter telling the person you'd winterize it and store it for them... come spring they open the garage and find the car had been totaled.  Should the person who totaled it no longer be held responsible because it passed some 60 or 90 day mark?

The valid point is though on the condition it was in when you borrowed it, I'll give my two cents on that further down in my reply.

And as I've indicated above, I didn't break it it just stopped working while I was using it.  Would you pay for 2 grand worth of repairs if you were idling a friend's borrowed car and  its engine massively seized up over some wear and tear issue?

One key reason I don't see the comparison to the car as valid is because cars require upkeep where other then putting in blank tapes and charging the battery, cameras do not (at least that I'm aware of).

Also the problem itself is relevant here.  If it were just a mater of the battery no longer holding a charge I'd say batteries have expected lives and can only be charged so many times so it's typical wear and not your fault unless you used it a lot (which it does sound like you did so I'd say you do owe partially for a new battery) but there are questions of other issues with the camera such as the eject no longer working.

A used battery may only last 1 or 2 more charges but it's the camera that's the real item of question here.

Now getting back to the point of it's original condition upon borrowing it.  That's the real crux (sp?) of this case.

From my reading of both sides it doesn't sound like there was any pre-known knowledge of problems prior to the loan taking place.  If there were then all bets are off.  Likewise if you borrow something and learn upon first use it's broken you have the responsibility to go back to the owner and say "hey did you know this wasn't working?  I didn't want you to think I broke it." as soon as you learn of the problem.

Here's a question I guess that might help me understand the situation better, how long did you borrow the camera?  Are we talking days, weeks, months?  If you had it for 2 or 3 months then the presumption is you were using it at that time and if there were problems it falls on you to let John know right away otherwise the presumption falls on you that it broke while in your care.

Nevertheless I appreciate you weighing in, as each new post gives us a better sense what we should do.  That is, if both of us are open minded and prepared to make honorable concessions.  I've made three so far and am concerned that John has made none.   That is not normally considered acceptable in mediation environments.  Stubbornness is only a virtue when you are right.

I'm certainly not a judge and I don't think I know John at all so take my comments for what they are worth (which ain't much).

One other question, what were the three concessions if you don't mind my asking.  I only recall seeing that you offered him money for a replacement which I personally don't think is good enough because then it would fall on him to do the leg work of actually finding the replacement for that amount.  My suggestion would be to either repair the camera or buy the replacement yourself and give it to him (although he should allow you to keep the old one at that point minus any extras the replacement doesn't have should you want it).

If you've offered to replace or repair the old camera and he's insisting on a brand new one then I'd say screw him and all bets are off.  There comes a point where if you've meet reasonable expectations of fixing a problem and the other side refuses to allow for it then you need to just walk away from each other and leave things unresolved.  That said, it doesn't sound though from John's comments that he's reached this point of unreasonableness.

[John]

If you've offered to replace or repair the old camera and he's insisting on a brand new one then I'd say screw him and all bets are off.  There comes a point where if you've meet reasonable expectations of fixing a problem and the other side refuses to allow for it then you need to just walk away from each other and leave things unresolved.  That said, it doesn't sound though from John's comments that he's reached this point of unreasonableness.

I agree that it would have been unreasonable to expect a brand new camera. I do not and never did.
If I had, I would say that I screwed myself.

[Dave Ridley]

Scroll back go earlier posts to see the concessions etc.... again I appreciate the comments on all sides. 

Now as for moving this forward: The original idea I had was to absorb all the suggestions from everyone above and then propose something which represents something slightly more John-friendly than the average suggestion.

The least pro-John suggestions say I should give him nothing and he's in the wrong.   The most pro-John suggestions imply I should find and buy a full replacement.   Opinions seem evenly divided.  So a compromise solution would be, well basically the one I proposed earlier where I pay him the minimal cost of a replacement camera and he does what he wants with the money. 

John has rejected this, but more importantly some of *you* seem to agree I should perform a replacement.  That seems excessive but bearing in mind that I appreciate John lending me the camera, and that I respect the opinion of this faction... I can't completely shunt this idea aside. 

I propose a new  compromise that has me doing all the legwork of purchasing/receiving the camera; however in this scenario John pays a third the cost of the replacement machine.  He gets the entire camera replaced, though not the battery and charger which were working fine upon return.

John comes out ahead here because this camera would have failed on him instead of me had I not been borrowing it at the time.  He would have had to pay the entire cost and do all the legwork. 

Here is an example of the type of camera I'm willing to speak for. 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sony-Handycam-DCR-HC38-Camcorder-680KP-40x-optical-zoom-/290467283974?pt=Camcorders_Professional_Video_Cameras&hash=item43a1330406

This one is unusually underused, the one I find and speak for may have more wear but will need to be listed as fully functional.  My plan would be to order it, receive it and verify that it is working, then give it to John the next time I see him or someone he authorizes to pick it up and pay me the 1/3rd.   There will be some delay in finding and picking up an appropriate machine; I'm going to shop around and not going to buy the first one I see.  Not very many sales of this model are available at once.  I need to know if John is satisfied with this type of ebay listing and if he accepts my offer to order a DCR-HC38 similar to this one , paying 2/3rds of the cost myself (shipping included in the total).

If this offer is rejected the initial result would be that I revert to the previous offer.

This new offer, to me, is going inappropriately far to compensate John for an injury I have not inflicted, which his camera inflicted on both of us while I was unlucky enough to be the one using it.  It's addressing a type of demand I wouldn't make on a blameless friend or enemy, and it's going beyond the average proposal on this board.  But I feel I need to bow partially before the will of those intermediaries who recommend a full replacement.

[John]

I'm thinking I can live with this.

Let me think about it today and get back to you tomorrow.

[Dave Ridley]

I'm thinking I can live with this.

Let me think about it today and get back to you tomorrow.

Thank you for your desire to move this forward toward a solution we can both live with.

[John]

Sorry for the delay.
Yes, I can live with that.

[Pat K]

Wait! What! Hey I just booked the ring!

You Fuckers! I demand arbitration.