Related to a Sad Sad Story

Thanking John for his "kind words" was in reponse to his statement that the "majority of respondents" had a lack of morality/conscience. I don't consider this a personal attack or being spiteful, but obviously you do.

 

I gotta agree with this line of thinking. Otherwise, no one would ever feel they got a deal on anything ... a "fair" deal maybe, but never a "good" or "great" deal.

How can it be unethical or immoral to purchase something - that someone obviously wants to sell - at a price the seller feels is fair? After all, no one is forcing the seller to sell.

 

The difference here is that Ida is abusing her position of trust as a service provider to John. There is a line you just do not cross with a customer or client. Withholding knowledge in order to gain an advantage might be acceptable between two parties who have no prior relationship, but when the person withholding the knowledge is taking advantage of a client, she is stepping WAAAAY over that line. If I did something like that to one of my customers, I would be fired and an ethics bulletin would be circulated throughout my company warning everyone not to do what I did.

 

This is an interesting side-discussion.. What's immoral? What's unethical? What's dishonest? What's business?

I can think of any number of examples that begs the question:

• The cashier at the grocery store gives you change for $20 when you only gave her $5
• You spot a treasure at a garage sale down the street. Price tag indicates seller doesn't know it's a treasure. You only know this 'neighbor' perfunctorily
• Same example, but instead, this is a neighbor you know well
• Your local gas station attendant made an error when entering the price at the pump. Instead of charging $4.399, it's charging $3.399
• While receiving change from purchasing your Big Mac lunch, you hear a familiar 'clink' that you recognize to be a silver quarter. While enjoying your lunch you take a look at your quarter and realize it's a rare mint, valued at over 100 times its face value
• While getting cash out of the ATM, the bills come out a little cockeyed. As you take your cash you realize that a $20 got a little wrapped around one of the other bills and subsequently you ended up with an extra $20 (don't scoff... this happened to me)
• While enjoying your evening stroll with your dog, you see $20 laying on the sidewalk. Up ahead 200 yards you see a young couple with a child in the stroller that just passed this way. Your house is 50 feet up. You don't know the couple.

​

What do you do in each of these cases? Is it more ethical to do 'the right thing' if you have knowledge of the value you're receiving or if you know the person in question? What if (like the McDonald's change example) no one actually takes a loss from your find... are you obligated to reveal 'the find'? Is the rule of thumb the old adage, 'Finders Keepers....'?

Interesting.

Seriously, back on topic... I'm sorry this happened to the OP. It's especially disheartening because it's about Canadians, and I always heard they were more honest than Americans... just kidding. It's especially disheartening if the person in question (Ida) abused her responsibility of trust, knowledge and maybe even confidentiality (if she's an employee) to capitalize on someone else's unfortunate circumstances. I also have to agree with what appears to be our legal experts sage advice that this will undoubtedly be long drawn-out and miserable for a long time. Sorry to hear it.

 

Well said.

Not a problem a_priori, I don't think many judges would recognize the finer points of the law. I hope that the Canadian legal system works in the OPs favor if brought to court.

 

The right thing to do always seems to me to be the right thing to do.

If it doesn't belong to you, then it belongs to someone else. If you know or reasonably suspect who may be the owner, then you clearly know what to do. If you cannot immediately identify the owner, then you hold it for that person and do your best to let people know you have the lost item. About the only example outside of these involves the silver dollar at McDonalds. If you saw someone pay for the meal with that silver dollar, then I think you should go to them so inquire whether they knew the dollar had more value and whether they wanted to purchase it from you for a dollar. Beyond that, there really is no one else to deal with. I suppose you could ask the manager to hold it incase someone came to claim it -- then you could request it be given to you after x days. Oh well, I think that is about the only one that hasn't happened to me.

Here is an interesting experience I had just one month ago. I was in Ecuador, with a friend who was born to American parents and raised in the Amazon jungle. We were visiting with my friend's close childhood buddy. That other friend is a native Cofan, and they spoke to each other in this language. It is a language unknown to Westerners 45 years ago, and it was spoken then only by the 400 members of that tribal group. Then, as today, the language has no words for money. For this reason, when they spoke about money and purchases, they shifted to Spanish. Further, when they talked about quantities, they also moved to the Spanish language. The reason? The Cofan language has recognized and common words for the numbers (amounts, really) one and two. Beyond that, it is difficult for the people to come up with words that describe those amounts. It appears the people understood that if you had one of something, you had what you needed, and if you had two you had something to share with the person who has none.

How do you think those people respond to greed?

People may scoff at this view as simplistic and naive. Still, I think I'll always have enough of the things I need, but if I scrape for more than that I'll do it at the cost of my capacity to care about people. Then what do I really have that has value?

 

malibujohn,

I'm hoping that everything is fine with you & since you haven't done any posting here for a while, I was wonder'g 2 things.

First, how is the criminal investigation doing in regards to your post at the start of this thread? Has a lawyer or more importantly a judge decided with you that this couple defrauded you by having insider knowledge about what Toyota would do for the owners of trucks with bad frames? He demonstrated he knew what he was doing by not even look'g at the frame or even test driving your truck. If he truly was going to repair it, he shold have looked undreneath to see how bad the frame damage was to judge how extensive a repair would be needed. But he really didn't care how bad it was because he just wanted to sit on it until he got his offer from Toyota. Maybe the new brakes he bought was just a small investment to convince Toyota that he wanted to make it safe to put on the road as opposed to just snapping it up at a cheap price & sitting on it just long enough to get the money from Toyota & run to the bank with it.

I don't know how computer savvy you are to do research before hand about your problem & Toyota's possible corrective solution. If you had gotten some parts for it yourself you might have run into the same parts man & found out about the recall coming down the pike. I don't think you could be expected to find out your options before hand (you had no knowledge until you got your recall notice), but I think your buyer's actions showed he knew what he was doing (using his employment experience with Toyota & his friendship with a current Toyota employee at the same dealership & using his wife's priviledged info from what probably should have remained confidential due to her employment situation). She knew you were on a meager (probably), fixed income & could have benefitted greatly if Toyota had paid YOU that money, but instead they saw it as an opportunity to swindle you out of it & make a fast buck for themselves. Morally they should have returned Toyota's payout money to you in exchange for the $4,000 check they gave you (or at least split it with you as they originally offered to do). If I were your buyer, I would have done at least that much (if not more) for you. That's the way I was brought up (to do the right thing).

If your courts see their actions as fraud to take advantage of you & order them to pay you back, don't be too joyful until you've seen the payback schedule. They made a sudden windfall & might get to keep it in the bank (making interest for them), while only having to pay you back the $15,000 at $1 a week (for 288.5 years) or $1 a month (taking 1,250 years) as sometimes happens in American court cases. Try to convince the courts to go for at least $100 per month or better. At $100 per month it will still take you 12.5 years to get the $15,000 back. $100 per week would get it back for you in a little less than 3 years.

My other question for you is on a lighter note. In your other thread entitled "Check out my interrior", you provided an e-bay reference # or auction item #. The day I read that post I checked that number on e-bay & it said item no longer for sale & I couldn't get any info on it. I was just wonder'g if you still had any paperwork (or anyhting ) from that kit that would have a phone # or address of the manufacturer [or even of the e-bay seller (in case he still deals with that supplier)]. I haven't ever seen a kit as extensive & good look'g for as cheap a price from any of the wood grain companies I'm aware of. I wouldn't even consider less of a kit for the $600 or more that some want, but a kit as good as yours for only $131 I'm still cosider'g. So, do you still have any info from your kit (or the e-bay seller) for me? Also, in case the kit is available in different types of wood, what was your wood called?

Ken (in Bolton,Ct)