100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Bank Accidentally Gives Man $5 Million | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Well, what a smart person would have done is to not spend the money. Stop arguing, but don't spend the money. Instead come in the next day, and sit down with a bank officer to talk about the situation. I guarantee you the bank officer is going to look into that, and you might just get some sort of thanks for being an honest/nice person (rather than your own personal court case).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, Like this man, Id tell her If she insisted it was mine and refused to take it though I wouldnt stand there and argue with her about. 
What He Said!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, Like this man, Id tell her If she insisted it was mine and refused to take it though I wouldnt stand there and argue with her about.
What He Said!!!
oh so you wouldn't take into account that she may have some memory problems or just confused....that is real nice of your two... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
northrn_yanke
on
Sun 03/02/08 09:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you!
I think youre sweet too!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. doc yer scaring me i said that a while ago gmta |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
armydoc4u
on
Sun 03/02/08 11:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. doc yer scaring me i said that a while ago gmta short term memory loss, sorry, just hmmm echoing your very wise comment. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Sun 03/02/08 11:24 AM
|
|
is there an echo in here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
