Old Woman Has Me By the Balls

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
That will hold up only to the point where they check with the old lady and discover you freely gave the card number to her. Best case scenario, it's your word against hers -- but since you appear to be an immature, sociopathic doofus with anger management issues, I think we all know how that will go.

Why should any of his personal characteristics matter? If he is eventually contacted during the investigation (which is extremely unlikely), all he would have to do is say she's full of it and go on about his merry way. If anything, sociopathy would make him a better liar than her.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Darius871


Why should any of his personal characteristics matter? If he is eventually contacted during the investigation (which is extremely unlikely), all he would have to do is say she's full of it and go on about his merry way. If anything, sociopathy would make him a better liar than her.

Because eventually the investigators are going to have to decide whom to believe. I may have encountererd people in real life who seemed less credible than Wiggy does on this board -- but I honestly can't think of any.

The fact is, he's hosed. The best he can do is take the old woman down with him. The fact that he thinks that that would be an appropriate outcome indicates that he has the the ethical instincts of a ill-brought-up 5-year-old.

In the end, this tread has shown that Wiggy is actually unfit to participate in normal human society. The fact that he aspires not just to participate in such society but to actually hold a position of responsibility in it is truly disturbing.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Because eventually the investigators are going to have to decide whom to believe. I may have encountererd people in real life who seemed less credible than Wiggy does on this board -- but I honestly can't think of any.

What makes you think he would talk to an investigator in the same way that he posts on some internet forum? I'm sure you've known or worked with people whose speech in person is like Shakespeare compared to their sloppy chats & emails, to put this in perspective.

All Wiggy has to do is temporarily pretend to be cool, calm, and collective IF/when he gets a followup call. It ain't that hard. Even if that won't be possible, in a lot of these situations he could just draft an affidavit and avoid being grilled in person.

[Kidlicious]

Darius, are like his slightly more intelligent brother or something?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Darius871

No, "common sense" would dictate that she should have just reported the crash like any law-abiding citizen. By going outside proper procedure for her own personal gain, she should be prepared to accept the consequences.

Whether an automobile accident has to be reported to anyone (usually the police) depends on the state and usually the severity of the damage/injuries.

Oh really? If I rear-end you, you file an insurance claim for a new fender, and you get a cashier's check for the fender estimate's amount, are you allowed to go spend that money on a new subwoofer? No. Anyone in the insurance business knows that's unequivocally illegal, and the same underlying principle should apply here.

There is nothing illegal or unethical about someone using an insurance payout paid to them for a legitimate claim for purposes other than the claim. The exception to that that I'm aware of (there may be others) is where someone else has a lien on the object that was insured. In those cases the insurance is usually paid directly to the company doing the repairs or one has to sign an affidavit to the lien holder that the repairs have been completed. In either case, it has nothing to do with the insurance company so long as the claim itself is not fraudulant.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Darius, are like his slightly more intelligent brother or something?

Care to respond to my post without spouting adhoms?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Whether an automobile accident has to be reported to anyone (usually the police) depends on the state and usually the severity of the damage/injuries.

I'm not only talking about the police; obviously insurance companies expect that any accident causing any damage should be reported, and there is an ethical obligation to do so.

Originally posted by SpencerH
There is nothing illegal or unethical about someone using an insurance payout paid to them for a legitimate claim for purposes other than the claim. The exception to that that I'm aware of (there may be others) is where someone else has a lien on the object that was insured. In those cases the insurance is usually paid directly to the company doing the repairs or one has to sign an affidavit to the lien holder that the repairs have been completed. In either case, it has nothing to do with the insurance company so long as the claim itself is not fraudulant.

Admittedly I was speaking from work experience in the context of a lienholder, but the point still stands as the vast majority of vehicles on the road today are financed. The odds are low that this lady owned her car free and clear. If she doesn't, then she's unethically screwing over not only her insurance company but her creditor as well.

What if the car gets repo'd some day and the creditor has to eat a $2K loss just because she'd rather buy some KY Jelly or whatever online with Wiggy's card instead of fixing the car? You can't tell me she'd be in the right there.

[SpencerH]

If it's financed then I would agree that she has an obligation the lienholder. I'm not sure that I agree that she has any ethical or legal obligation to maintain (ie repair) the vehicle. If that were true then lienholders could specify that cars must be maintained acording to the manufacturers recommendations or at specific locations, etc. None of which can be done. Her only legal obgligation, if we assume that her car is financed, is to make the payments on the car.

[Legal Disclaimer] My discussions herein should in no way be viewed as any explicit or implicit agreement that I believe Wiglafs story to be anything other than wild fantasy.[/Legal Disclaimer]

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871


Care to respond to my post without spouting adhoms?

Not really. You propose that he do something stupid and immoral. That's about all I have to say. I look forward to reading about the fallout.

[Ramo]

Incorrect; according to Wiggy's representations here, she fully understood that the card would be canceled ASAP and that her spending spree could only last until the cancellation. There was no fraud on his part.

He tried to cancel it before she would get a chance to use it. I'm pretty sure that she didn't agree to that, regardless of what Wiggy may have said. That's attempted fraud.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by SpencerH
If it's financed then I would agree that she has an obligation the lienholder. I'm not sure that I agree that she has any ethical or legal obligation to maintain (ie repair) the vehicle. If that were true then lienholders could specify that cars must be maintained acording to the manufacturers recommendations or at specific locations, etc. None of which can be done. Her only legal obgligation, if we assume that her car is financed, is to make the payments on the car.

No, it's a fact that the fine print in virtually all lease contracts contain a provision holding the lessee responsible for excess wear & tear, and that even in loan situations the driver is generally held responsible for repairing significant damage. If the damage you failed to repair makes your car worth $5K less at at a repo auction for instance, it's not like the bank's going to subtract $5K from your deficiency balance. You're legally obligated to pay it.

Originally posted by Kidicious
Not really. You propose that he do something stupid and immoral. That's about all I have to say. I look forward to reading about the fallout.

Fine, just wait for the results and you'll see that I'm right. Wiggy has nothing to worry about.

Originally posted by Ramo
He tried to cancel it before she would get a chance to use it. I'm pretty sure that she didn't agree to that, regardless of what Wiggy may have said. That's attempted fraud.

Why wouldn't she agree to it? From her perspective there was a chance to spend thousands of dollars in time. It probably would have taken Wiggy 10 minutes more to make it home, and at least half an hour before his cancellation request would actually take effect. She took on a great opportunity in a bargained-for exchange, not fraud.

[b etor]

all those videos.

[Ramo]

Why wouldn't she agree to it? From her perspective there was a chance to spend thousands of dollars in time. It probably would have taken Wiggy 10 minutes more to make it home, and at least half an hour before his cancellation request would actually take effect. She took on a great opportunity in a bargained-for exchange, not fraud.

IF that was the deal - the lady could charge as much as possible to the card before Wiggy got home, then Wiggy should be thankful that the lady only took out $350. That's an act of mercy...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Darius871


No, it's a fact that the fine print in virtually all lease contracts contain a provision holding the lessee responsible for excess wear & tear, and that even in loan situations the driver is generally held responsible for repairing significant damage. If the damage you failed to repair makes your car worth $5K less at at a repo auction for instance, it's not like the bank's going to subtract $5K from your deficiency balance. You're legally obligated to pay it.

Its true that for a lease that there are "wear and tear" provisions that are a part of the contract. Thats because a car lease is a special type of "purchase". There are no similar provisions for a standard car purchase. In the case of a repossesion, the lien holder is simply trying to minimize their loss. The purchaser is still responsible for the amount of the loan no matter what happens to the car whether its repossesed, destroyed, stolen, etc.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
IF that was the deal - the lady could charge as much as possible to the card before Wiggy got home, then Wiggy should be thankful that the lady only took out $350. That's an act of mercy...

True, but that doesn't bear on whether Wiggy should get even for her almost killing him out on the road. I love how everyone here is just ignoring that part.

Originally posted by SpencerH
There are no similar provisions for a standard car purchase. In the case of a repossesion, the lien holder is simply trying to minimize their loss. The purchaser is still responsible for the amount of the loan no matter what happens to the car whether its repossesed, destroyed, stolen, etc.

Even so, and even if the car isn't technically the creditor's "property" so far as DMV registration is concerned, the lender has a clear financial interest in the car being kept in good condition and the lady thus has an ethical (if not legal) obligation not to destroy the thing.

If her driving & repair choices mean the difference between a $12K deficiency balance or a $7K deficiency balance, sure she'll be 'responsible' either way but in the former case the lender will nonetheless usually take a greater net loss. What if she turns out to be on SS income and has only $7K in garnishable assets? Then her driving & repair choices screwed the lender out of $5K! That certainly puts her in the wrong.