Dear Prudence, The last time my husband’s brother and his family were visiting, my husband scraped his brother’s car with his, causing minimal paint damage. My brother-in-law asked us to get repair quotes; the bumper would have to be pulled off and repainted entirely for over $700. My husband wasn’t thrilled, but it was his fault, so we sent a check. My in-laws cashed the check but then decided not to fix their car, which is a work vehicle, since “it’ll probably just get more dings and dents.” My husband is furious and wants them to give us our money back. I don’t think that’s necessarily the right answer, but I’m at a loss.
–Twice Dinged
Your husband did the right thing paying for the cost to repair the scratch, which his brother took as an excuse to take advantage of him. If Bro had always planned to cash your husband’s check without getting his car fixed, odds are he won’t return the money even if you ask. But it’s worth asking. Your husband should tell his brother (as calmly as possible) that he gave him the check with the understanding that it would repair the car, not because he wanted his brother to have $700. If they still refuse to send back a check, you’ll know not to write them any more in the future (and to park on the other side of the street whenever you see them coming).
__________________
The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.
I don't know. He scraped his car, even if the brother doesn't chose to fix it right now, if he goes to sell it or trade it in, he will get less because of the damage, so I feel the money is his to do with as he pleases.
I don't know. He scraped his car, even if the brother doesn't chose to fix it right now, if he goes to sell it or trade it in, he will get less because of the damage, so I feel the money is his to do with as he pleases.
I agree.
The payment is for loss in value of the car. The owner can absorb the loss in value and spend the money elsewhere, whether they're family or a stranger.
And $700 in damage is very little these days.
-- Edited by ed11563 on Thursday 24th of December 2015 04:25:01 PM
__________________
The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.
Unless the LW wants this to become the chisel that divides the family, they'll let it go.
ANY time you damage another's property, you take responsibility. What they do with the money, is their business.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
I don't know. He scraped his car, even if the brother doesn't chose to fix it right now, if he goes to sell it or trade it in, he will get less because of the damage, so I feel the money is his to do with as he pleases.
I disagree. Either it is an issue or not. If it isn't, they should not have accepted and cashed the check.
Why didn't LW's hubby go through his insurance? My guess is he didn't want it on his record so he wouldn't have to pay higher premiums and other costs states charge for having an accident. So really, his bro saved him money by not reporting it and going through the insurance.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
I don't know. He scraped his car, even if the brother doesn't chose to fix it right now, if he goes to sell it or trade it in, he will get less because of the damage, so I feel the money is his to do with as he pleases.
I disagree. Either it is an issue or not. If it isn't, they should not have accepted and cashed the check.
It's an issue. Whether they decide to get it fixed or not is irrelevant. There is damage, the person who did the damage should pay.
Prudie's advice, especially the part about the brother trying to "take advantange" was absolutely stupid.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
I don't know. He scraped his car, even if the brother doesn't chose to fix it right now, if he goes to sell it or trade it in, he will get less because of the damage, so I feel the money is his to do with as he pleases.
I disagree. Either it is an issue or not. If it isn't, they should not have accepted and cashed the check.
It's an issue. Whether they decide to get it fixed or not is irrelevant. There is damage, the person who did the damage should pay.
Prudie's advice, especially the part about the brother trying to "take advantange" was absolutely stupid.
Sorry, but if it was something I fluffed off and choose not to fix, then i would not be having someone else pay me for work that I didn't commission. That is no different than filing an insurance claim and collecting the money to fix something and then not fixing it. That is fraud. This is just wrong spirited on many levels in my opinion.
I don't know. He scraped his car, even if the brother doesn't chose to fix it right now, if he goes to sell it or trade it in, he will get less because of the damage, so I feel the money is his to do with as he pleases.
I disagree. Either it is an issue or not. If it isn't, they should not have accepted and cashed the check.
It's an issue. Whether they decide to get it fixed or not is irrelevant. There is damage, the person who did the damage should pay.
Prudie's advice, especially the part about the brother trying to "take advantange" was absolutely stupid.
Sorry, but if it was something I fluffed off and choose not to fix, then i would not be having someone else pay me for work that I didn't commission. That is no different than filing an insurance claim and collecting the money to fix something and then not fixing it. That is fraud. This is just wrong spirited on many levels in my opinion.
BS. You are dead wrong. The payment is for damage cause--not any "work".
You can absolutely file an insurance claim for damage to the car and then pocket the money and not fix it. That is NOT "fraud".
I can't believe you know so little about how car insurance works.
This is privately paid, but the principal is the same. You pay for the loss of value on the automobile--not for "fixing" it. The loss of value on the car is there. If they choose to fix it--great. If not, it will be worth less when they sell it, and therefore the money paid is to make up for that.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
BS. You are dead wrong. The payment is for damage cause--not any "work".
You can absolutely file an insurance claim for damage to the car and then pocket the money and not fix it. That is NOT "fraud".
I can't believe you know so little about how car insurance works.
This is privately paid, but the principal is the same. You pay for the loss of value on the automobile--not for "fixing" it. The loss of value on the car is there. If they choose to fix it--great. If not, it will be worth less when they sell it, and therefore the money paid is to make up for that.
Yes, exactly right.
__________________
The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.
