100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Bank Accidentally Gives Man $5 Million | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You're saying that on top of everything else we have to keep up with in our day to day lives, we are responsible for everyone elses incompetence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why should the bank not be responsible for their actions
they screwed up he told them they screwed up they refused to listen ------------------------- if you tell your kid don't do that (don't give me this money) and yer kid does it anyway (argues about not my money) the kid breaks the toy by doing it (man walks out w/money) do you buy kid new toy (why should bank get new toy[money]) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, If you dont have an account with them you cant even cash a check.
Why should this guy be jailed for this banks screw-up! Trial by jury is how I would go! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, If you dont have an account with them you cant even cash a check. Why should this guy be jailed for this banks screw-up! Trial by jury is how I would go!
maybe the teller and him had it planned you had to ask and i was agreeing with you now there is a twist in the possibility |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
northrn_yanke
on
Sun 03/02/08 08:08 AM
|
|
So you're saying the bank has no responsibility for the incompetence of their employees or their banking practices.
I guess it's ok as long as you don't make a mistake that is costly to you huh... 
it's really simple common law principle that covers this issue and there is not viable chance this dolt would ever be successful at trial. It's an old principle that has been relied on since before 1900... if the money is paid out in error then the receiver does not legally own the money because it is inequitable that he should keep...the inequitable principle is root of the enrichment principle...no one should unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of someone else.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, If you dont have an account with them you cant even cash a check. Why should this guy be jailed for this banks screw-up! Trial by jury is how I would go!
maybe the teller and him had it planned you had to ask and i was agreeing with you now there is a twist in the possibility I know you were.  
Hows it hanging adj? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well i say hell with it.
if that amount ever winds up in my account, i would tell them once, if they persisted with the NO ITS YOURS mentality then an account would immediately be opened in the caymans or switzerland. And a small island populated with polinesian women would soon have a new owner. mai tai's anyone. hshahahahahahaha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The way I read it, he tried to tell them, but they insisted it was his.
I personally think he would have been a dumbass not to take it. If it was a conspiracy between him and the teller then they should prosecute that. Not prosecute him for their own incompetence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well i say hell with it. if that amount ever winds up in my account, i would tell them once, if they persisted with the NO ITS YOURS mentality then an account would immediately be opened in the caymans or switzerland. And a small island populated with polinesian women would soon have a new owner. mai tai's anyone. hshahahahahahaha that is what i said in my original post (almost( |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The way I read it, he tried to tell them, but they insisted it was his. I personally think he would have been a dumbass not to take it. If it was a conspiracy between him and the teller then they should prosecute that. Not prosecute him for their own incompetence. i have e feeling it takes more than a teller to hand over 2 million not that i know 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I paid my electric bill once and the electric company turned my power off a week later.
It took me six months to find that they had applied that payment to someone elses account. Did the power company get prosecuted? No, of course not. I didnt even get an apology, just a bunch of bull**** and troubles. I had to borrow the money to pay my bill twice plus a reconnect fee for something that wasnt my fault. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well i say hell with it. if that amount ever winds up in my account, i would tell them once, if they persisted with the NO ITS YOURS mentality then an account would immediately be opened in the caymans or switzerland. And a small island populated with polinesian women would soon have a new owner. mai tai's anyone. hshahahahahahaha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the guys a bit of a dolt if he thinks just cause the bank confused him with someone else that that give the him the right to withdraw an amount that he knew was not his....
I very much disagree. The person in question tried to tell the bank there was a mistake. He should not be charged with a crime, and he should not be made to pay it back. The only mistake I can see he made was NOT getting it in writing that the money was his. The bank should absorb the cost of the mistake to pay back the shorted account. It was the bank’s mistake after all. The guy stole the money. We are talking about two million dollars. I posted above how my husband walked out with a twenty dollar bill when the teller became nasty and argumative when she thought he was the one who had been shorted the money. So, I felt it was okay for my guy to walk off with twenty dollars. Twenty dollars is nothing; it won't even fill your gas tank. But come on now, we are talking two million dollars. You just don't walk away with that amount of money knowing it is not yours. This guy is an out and out thief and deserves to be thrown in jail. Banks, especially the one in question, make trillions in pure profit every year by charging “loanshark-ish” interest rates. THEY made the mistake. THEY should pay for it. The shareholders are invested, win or lose, in the bank. They are the owners. They need to re-evaluate the procedures that caused the error. The share holders, as the owners SHOULD be responsible for something besides raising interest rates, and making another trillion dollars off the working man’s back |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aye, Aye
Trial by jury!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aye, Aye
Trial by jury!! whose paying for it?..seems like you missed this the first time around...
it's really simple common law principle that covers this issue and there is not viable chance this dolt would ever be successful at trial. It's an old principle that has been relied on since before 1900... if the money is paid out in error then the receiver does not legally own the money because it is inequitable that he should keep...the inequitable principle is root of the enrichment principle...no one should unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of someone else.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
leahmarie
on
Sun 03/02/08 08:51 AM
|
|
If this guy had any sense he'd ask for a trial by jury! fanta...... trial by jury on crazy stuff, yes. they would acquit him. here's a good one ....... guy goes hunting in upstate Pennsylvania ...... stops by one of those areas where they have lots of vending machines for coffee, donuts, cigarettes, and etc. ...... puts money in two vending machines ..... nothing .... no coffee .... no donuts .... no refund of money ...... moves on to a second area where same thing happens ...... moves on to a third area ...... same thing happens again. at this point, guy infuriated ..... as I said this is a hunter .... pulls out his rifle and empties it into vending machines .... then proceeds to take gun and hammers on machines ..... guy arrested ...... demands jury trial. lawyer at trial tells jury that we have all gotten so frustrated at vending machines taking our money and not giving us whatever machine was supposed to ..... this guy did what all of us have dreamed of doing .... therefore, unless you can honestly say you haven't wanted to do what this guy did, then you must acquit ..... guy was acquitted ..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aye, Aye
Trial by jury!! whose paying for it?..seems like you missed this the first time around...
it's really simple common law principle that covers this issue and there is not viable chance this dolt would ever be successful at trial. It's an old principle that has been relied on since before 1900... if the money is paid out in error then the receiver does not legally own the money because it is inequitable that he should keep...the inequitable principle is root of the enrichment principle...no one should unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of someone else.... Then there is one more law that needs to be changed. To me that sounds like a special law to make the rich richer. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, and striving to become more so. However, such a law makes sure the one who pays for the bank’s error is not the one who made it. Trial by Jury? I have paid for it every time I pay any taxes. It has already been paid for. Are you actually suggesting there be no trial?? This is America!!! NOT IRAQ!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aye, Aye
Trial by jury!! whose paying for it?..seems like you missed this the first time around...
it's really simple common law principle that covers this issue and there is not viable chance this dolt would ever be successful at trial. It's an old principle that has been relied on since before 1900... if the money is paid out in error then the receiver does not legally own the money because it is inequitable that he should keep...the inequitable principle is root of the enrichment principle...no one should unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of someone else.... Then there is one more law that needs to be changed. To me that sounds like a special law to make the rich richer. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, and striving to become more so. However, such a law makes sure the one who pays for the bank’s error is not the one who made it. Trial by Jury? I have paid for it every time I pay any taxes. It has already been paid for. Are you actually suggesting there be no trial?? This is America!!! NOT IRAQ!!!!!! FYI, one can not only opt for trial by jury, but also ask that there by no jury and that the judge render the verdict. Additionally, one can plead guilty or make a plea bargain of some sort, thereby avoiding trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aye, Aye
Trial by jury!! whose paying for it?..seems like you missed this the first time around...
it's really simple common law principle that covers this issue and there is not viable chance this dolt would ever be successful at trial. It's an old principle that has been relied on since before 1900... if the money is paid out in error then the receiver does not legally own the money because it is inequitable that he should keep...the inequitable principle is root of the enrichment principle...no one should unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of someone else.... not really missing the point, just having a little fun.... the guys going to be ordered to pay some sort of restitution, its pretty much all there is to it, but if he has a good lawyer i'd say sue the bank for mental damages caused by not taking the money back in the first place.... tort reform needs fixed in this country maybe this will put a spot lite on that as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then there is one more law that needs to be changed. To me that sounds like a special law to make the rich richer. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, and striving to become more so. However, such a law makes sure the one who pays for the bank’s error is not the one who made it.
if you lost your purse and it had all your money in it some ID but the person who found it took all your the money and threw purse away do you think that person should be able to keep your money and not be forced to give it back to you if caught...after all it was your mistake for losing your purse... |
|
|
|
|
