Perhaps, but then perhaps not as most of the time having the tar kicked out of them and maybe even the fear of God put into them makes for a lasting impression.
But then things usually don't come to that or need to go that far.
Things like eating solid food and walking without a limp for the rest of their lives are important to most people.
There are just soooo many things wrong with your post that I don't even know where to begin...
Violence does not change a man's resolve if he is authentically resolute in his beliefs?
Wrath is the gravest of all sins?
Fear of God or Fear of you? Do you consider yourself to be God?
You did not even address the issue of legal recourse?
Walking with a limp might be your fate should the assault victim choose to send you to Prison?
Sorry sir - but I'm not even going to bother
Although some of you are posting that the seller has the responsibility and the buyer shouldnt be out of luck, we must ask ourselves the difference between if one should be responsible, and which one, as Killa concept said, is the legally enforceable. I think the two parties debating here are coming from different points of view.
Although it is deplorable for the buyer to the out of luck, legally, per the lawyer that posted, the buyer is out of luck if the seller so chooses to not give a f#$% about the deal.
Does that seem fair or right or anything of the such? no it doesnt.
So it will just be up to the views of the seller and what he chooses to do, per the law...
Exactly - hence my comment about the straw man fallacy. When you put words into someone's mouth and attack them for it, you're not actually making a valid argument. My discussion has not been about the ethics of the situation, it has been about law... the reason being that our ethical stances mean nothing should the seller decide he does not feel liable.
You make some very valid points and I agree with some of them to an extent. The one flaw I see with your argument in this thread is you comment about not knowing the neighborhood somebody lives in. That, to me, is only a small factor in buying insurance. The one, I repeat, one instance where I had an issue with the USPS had nothing to do with it being stolen from my home or mailbox. I had a package delivered to my PO Box. The USPS delivered it to the wrong PO Box and it was lost for a while. I did eventually get it back and all was well. A lesson for both myself and the seller. My point being, packages can also get lost or damaged in transit or simply delivered to the wrong place. While making your argument don't forget those critical points.
Also, this topic has been covered a number of times here and the consensus from the experts is: drum roll please . . . GET INSURANCE!
Ah - a complete oversight on my part and indeed something I failed to include in my argument. However, I do believe that my main point still very much stands. Communication is vital and what the "experts" have concluded is ultimately nothing past an opinion. I'm sure one could even pin the expectation of insurance being mandatory as the cause of this situation...
As much as everyone wants their feelings on ethics and integrity to count in this scenario, it really does not translate over to legal liability. I see no reason to leave anything as an assumption (let alone an expectation) when a large sum of money or property is on the line - simply because, should it boil down to a case, an assumption or expectation does not hold water in court.
Regardless of whether the two members work out the situation or if it ends up as a legal dispute, it will be no thanks to us and the moral is still going to be
COMMUNICATION IS VITAL!
:grumpy:
I have very little faith in the law for all of you law minded people. Get real with your laws that are almost useless since they are written by some of the biggest law breakers and immoral, dishonorable people that exist.
:thumbup: