The Case of the Missing Wine

[OttoVonBismarck]

And I only brought up the gold bar to explain the spectrum of behavior. Something really valuable like a gold bar on my property, I ain't telling anybody I found it, that shit be worth money. But that's also finding essentially pure gold unpacked in my yard, a different scenario entirely.

Something like wine, which I enjoy, but isn't insanely valuable or anything is just in "peril" of being consumed if the delivery company doesn't properly rectify the delivery.

Any non-consumable there would be a sliding scale. Something of low value, I'd try for a bit to get it to the right place, then throw it away if I couldn't. Something like a computer or something I'd keep it until it was sorted out, but wouldn't seize it for my own purposes.

[crazy canuck]

the tort of conversion

In Polish, the word "tort" means "torte" (or a fancy cake). So "tort of conversion" sounds like a magical consummable which would turn you Jewish upon eating.

Yes, but most lawyers, even from civil law countries, know what a tort is in the common law.  It is sort of a fundamental concept.

[Martinus]

By American standards perhaps.  But most everywhere else in the civilized world if one knowingly takes the property of another for their own purpose it is theft or at the very least the tort of conversion.  I suppose its just peachy that some Americans think the statute of limitations is Fex Ex not picking up the package within an arbitrary period selected by the would be thief.

Well this is stuff that essentially fell into my property. If I found a gold bar in my yard I wouldn't have even made a good faith effort to find the rightful owner. I'd consider it a case of "too bad, so sad" for whomever was foolish enough to deposit gold bars on my land.

I'm confused, if you didn't think what you did was wrong, why didn't you fess up when the owner came looking?

Yeah, that's the fatal flaw in OVB's moral reasoning.  If he truly thinks he did no wrong he should have no problem admitting it to the old man.

And Otto, I couldn't give a proper legal analysis to the wine since there were all kinds of bailment issues going on, but if you find a gold bar on your land, it is yours UNLESS the rightful owner shows up, in which case it still belongs to that person.

And again, in many legal systems there are special regulations about finding "treasures" in the land.

[crazy canuck]

And I only brought up the gold bar to explain the spectrum of behavior. Something really valuable like a gold bar on my property, I ain't telling anybody I found it, that shit be worth money. But that's also finding essentially pure gold unpacked in my yard, a different scenario entirely.

Something like wine, which I enjoy, but isn't insanely valuable or anything is just in "peril" of being consumed if the delivery company doesn't properly rectify the delivery.

Any non-consumable there would be a sliding scale. Something of low value, I'd try for a bit to get it to the right place, then throw it away if I couldn't. Something like a computer or something I'd keep it until it was sorted out, but wouldn't seize it for my own purposes.

I don't think you need to confess your immorality any further.

[Martinus]

the tort of conversion

In Polish, the word "tort" means "torte" (or a fancy cake). So "tort of conversion" sounds like a magical consummable which would turn you Jewish upon eating.

Yes, but most lawyers, even from civil law countries, know what a tort is in the common law.  Its is sort of a fundamental concept.

I also know what it means - I attended a two year English common law course run by Cambridge. I just thought the expression is funny.

[crazy canuck]

I also know what it means - I attended a two year English common law course run by Cambridge. I just thought the expression is funny.

Then why have you been so completely unaware of most common law concepts over the years.  Just playing dumb?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I dispute that the initial consumption of wine was immoral, lying was immoral--it almost always is, Kant would say it always is, in fact. But I lie when it suits me, most people lie if they have to do so. Some are white lies, and I don't usually lie about things of great import or anything like that. Unless someone here claims they've never lied they are hypocrites to even judge it.

The initial consumption of the wine, I had no ethical obligation to store someone's property against my will. Since it was ethically fine to destroy it, it was also ethically fine to consume it. When the old man came, I should have made it right by giving him his ten bottles. But I didn't, that's where I see the moral failing. You see it in taking the two bottles, and I see no moral problem there. I didn't ask that they be put on my property, I didn't want them to be, and I gave reasonable time frames for the courier to correct the issue, we're talking over ten days total this situation persisted before I drank wine.

[Martinus]

I also know what it means - I attended a two year English common law course run by Cambridge. I just thought the expression is funny.

Then why have you been so completely unaware of most common law concepts over the years.  Just playing dumb?

Care to give any examples?

[crazy canuck]

I also know what it means - I attended a two year English common law course run by Cambridge. I just thought the expression is funny.

Then why have you been so completely unaware of most common law concepts over the years.  Just playing dumb?

Care to give any examples?

They are really too numerous to list.  Suffice to say there is a reason there is a Languish Meme that you are not really a lawyer.  You have seemed so obtuse about law in common law countries.  I always just assumed it was because your legal training didn't give you exposure to this area. 

[crazy canuck]

I dispute that the initial consumption of wine was immoral, lying was immoral--it almost always is, Kant would say it always is, in fact. But I lie when it suits me, most people lie if they have to do so. Some are white lies, and I don't usually lie about things of great import or anything like that. Unless someone here claims they've never lied they are hypocrites to even judge it.

The initial consumption of the wine, I had no ethical obligation to store someone's property against my will. Since it was ethically fine to destroy it, it was also ethically fine to consume it. When the old man came, I should have made it right by giving him his ten bottles. But I didn't, that's where I see the moral failing. You see it in taking the two bottles, and I see no moral problem there. I didn't ask that they be put on my property, I didn't want them to be, and I gave reasonable time frames for the courier to correct the issue, we're talking over ten days total this situation persisted before I drank wine.

The lying is simply evidence that you knew what you had done was wrong.  The lying was wrong yes.  But so was the act you felt compelled to cover up by lying.

[Martinus]

I also know what it means - I attended a two year English common law course run by Cambridge. I just thought the expression is funny.

Then why have you been so completely unaware of most common law concepts over the years.  Just playing dumb?

Care to give any examples?

They are really too numerous to list.  Suffice to say there is a reason there is a Languish Meme that you are not really a lawyer.  You have seemed so obtuse about law in common law countries.  I always just assumed it was because your legal training didn't give you exposure to this area.

That "meme" is limited to you being insulting (plus an occasional troll from Raz and grumbler). Admittedly, my studies were focused mainly on English contract and corporat law and I do not have US constitutional law (or generally, US common law) training and this is what gets discussed mainly here when law is being discussed - and I also argue from the position of what law should be (as I believe arguing from the position of what law is in an international crowd is pretty useless, since it is obviously different everywhere). That does not mean I do not understand legal concepts.

[alfred russel]

I think what we are witnessing in this thread is an illustration of the moral and spiritual degradation of the west point man that has led to military struggles overseas and a 13 game losing streak against the midshipmen.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The lying is simply evidence that you knew what you had done was wrong.  The lying was wrong yes.  But so was the act you felt compelled to cover up by lying.

Doesn't follow, all you really have to support that is that if I needed to lie about it, then it must have been immoral. But many acts which are not immoral can be lied about.

The intrinsic morality of the act was neutral. I had no duty to the owner of the wine, he did not order it from me nor did I agree to ship it to him. FedEx had a duty to the wine owner. I would accept that I had some duty societally to FedEx. They had made a good faith mistake and given me property they did not intend to give me. I feel that I satisfied my duty to FedEx, and thus my moral obligations in the initial matter, by working hard and giving them a large window of time in which to come collect the wine. FedEx failed in its duty to the owner of the wine. I failed in my duty to the owner of the wine only in that I lied to him, as I have a duty to others to not lie.

[Jacob]

I don't agree that taking possession of things that are mis-delivered to your property is morally neutral. It's appealing, yes, but it's not morally neutral no matter how you dress it up in arguments of convenience and other people fucking up.

[crazy canuck]

The lying is simply evidence that you knew what you had done was wrong.  The lying was wrong yes.  But so was the act you felt compelled to cover up by lying.

Doesn't follow, all you really have to support that is that if I needed to lie about it, then it must have been immoral. But many acts which are not immoral can be lied about.

The intrinsic morality of the act was neutral. I had no duty to the owner of the wine, he did not order it from me nor did I agree to ship it to him. FedEx had a duty to the wine owner. I would accept that I had some duty societally to FedEx. They had made a good faith mistake and given me property they did not intend to give me. I feel that I satisfied my duty to FedEx, and thus my moral obligations in the initial matter, by working hard and giving them a large window of time in which to come collect the wine. FedEx failed in its duty to the owner of the wine. I failed in my duty to the owner of the wine only in that I lied to him, as I have a duty to others to not lie.

I fear you are past hope if you view taking property you know is not yours and then lying about it is in any way morally neutral.