Discussion in 'General Industry Discussions' started by irdannydgarner, Jun 19, 2019.

  1. EricC

    EricC LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 458

    To combine the Harley and Door examples. In reality, the person breaking the glass should have just paid for the glass. Problem solved. It's all the homeowner was owed or entitled to. But, to help ease the situation, they agreed to pay for a new door. I think they'd get the old door if they wanted to pursue it.

    Like if I backed into your Harley and damaged some stuff and because I wanted to make things easy, I decided just to buy you a knew one rather than pay for fixing what was broken. I find it highly unlikely a court would side with the owner in keeping the replacement and the repairable original.

    I wouldn't pursue it for a door, but if I wanted to, I have a feeling the courts would also rule the owner owns the replacement, they don't own 2 doors because legally, all they were entitled to is new glass, not 2 doors.
  2. Mattmowsgrass

    Mattmowsgrass LawnSite Member
    Messages: 132

    The judge may give the door to the contractor, I'd think they would. but until the courts do that the door belongs to the customer. in the future I'd have the customer sign a contract.
    hort101 likes this.
  3. EricC

    EricC LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 458

    I'd just pay for the glass :)

    They can take me to court for more.
  4. Mowing monkey.

    Mowing monkey. LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 581

    I don’t know why anyone cares about the door, if it wasn’t fixed to begin with it’s probably worthless. But for the topic of discussion you absolutely don’t get to keep the damaged item and the replacement one. Proved by insurance company’s keeping any vehicles they have to replace. If the insurance paid for stolen property that’s later recovered they get to keep that too.

    JLSLLC LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 14,647

    I read somewhere the op said door was worth $400 or something like that for the wood
    Walker56 likes this.
  6. Ridin' Green

    Ridin' Green LawnSite Fanatic
    Male, from Michigan
    Messages: 21,359

    ^^^This is the only answer that needed to be posted.

    No judge would rule in favor of the HO. The HO is only entitled to exactly what he lost and nothing more. I am not a lawyer either, but you can take that to the bank. The HO is trying to gain/profit from this, not get back to what was before the incident and he isn't entitled to.
    hort101 likes this.
  7. weeze

    weeze LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 16,378

    you gotta watch people. they try to take advantage of situations. if you broke the glass all you have to pay for is a new glass insert. you don't have to buy them a whole new door just because that's what they want. it's not about what they want it's about fixing what you broke.
    hort101, paulsgrass and Charles like this.
  8. OP

    irdannydgarner LawnSite Member
    from texas
    Messages: 3

    Here is the law in Texas. What my friend should have done was just replace the glass. You are only liable for what you broke and have to put it back the way it was. If that wasn't good enough for the homeowner tuff crap. He could sue but would get laughed out of court. But by buying an entire new door and footing the bill he unknowingly settled out of court. The door was legally property of the homeowner and it would have been theft of property. As far as how car insurance companies go, the don't just hand you a check without you signing a release and somewhere in that paperwork you are agreeing to forfeit ownership of the old vehicle. Thanks for everyone's feedback was interesting to see so many points of view
    hort101 and Mattmowsgrass like this.

Share This Page