The saga of brothers Alex and Bob

brotherpoll December 30, 2016 at 04:08 2500 views 6 comments

I'm looking for feedback on what is the morally correct thing to do in both of these scenarios. What is the most fair and reasonable outcome?

Scenario 1: Fine and Points

Alex was caught speeding and asked bob for a favour to take his 3 points and says he will pay £60 fine and any increase in premium from the 3 points for the time they are on Bob's license.
Bob agreed to do favour.
Alex nominated Bob,
New notice was sent to Bob,
Alex kept asking if the notice had come yet and Bob kept saying no,
The time in which to pay before being summonsed passed and Bob then discovers letter he thought was bank statement, but just never bothered to open, was actually the notice, but it's already too late.
Bob goes to court and gets £150 fine instead of the £60 fine and 2 extra points, so 5 points total.
Because of Bobs mistake, Alex now has much higher cost for both the fine and the premium being more than double what it would have been had the fine been paid on time and it was only 3 points.

Cost to Alex without mistake:
£60 fine, £252 premium increase, TOTAL: £312

Cost to Alex with mistake:
£150 fine, £543 premium increase, TOTAL: £693

Cost of mistake: £381

Scenario 2: Oil

Alex is self employed with a job that involves driving.
Alex needed help one day and Bob was available so Bob drove Alex's work motor by himself.
Bob still had 100+ miles to drive before finishing for the day.
The oil light came on while Bob was driving.
Bob got out and checked the oil at the side of the road with the dipstick which indicated there was enough. Unknown as to whether it was on level ground and it most likely wasn't allowed cool before checking.
Bob made no effort to contact Alex to inform him the light was on or to ask what he wanted to do.
Bob continued to drive with the oil light on, for circa 100 miles.
The engine seized and the motor had to be towed to Alex's mechanic.
This cost Alex over £600 for a used engine and labour plus the time and money spent running around to get engine.

Any feedback at all would be great!

Comments (6)

BC December 30, 2016 at 05:01 #42283 0 likes

First, change the names in one of the scenarios. It's confusing to have two situations with Bob and Alex. How about Lewis and Vladimir for one case, Bob and Alex for the other.

People make mistakes. Alex's is the primary mistake and it is his responsibility to pay for the cost of speeding (the increased insurance rate). Bob's mistake is secondary. He bears no blame for Alex's speeding. Bob isn't obligated to pay Alex for part of the twice-increased premium. On the other hand, maybe he shouldn't have agreed to cover Alex in the first place. Alex, drive more cautiously and pay the cost of speeding.

Bob, was there nowhere you could buy some oil and add it? Bob, cough up some money for the ruined engine.

Bob and Alex should stop doing business with each other.

brotherpoll February 02, 2017 at 21:00 #52287 0 likes

I just thought I'd come back and bump this to try and get a few more opinions as it's still not resolved ;(

S February 02, 2017 at 22:04 #52310 0 likes

Bob is partly to blame in both cases, and bears some responsibility. He agreed to do something, then he fucked up, and this caused the financial cost to increase substantially. Bob should cover at least some of the cost.

In the first case, if Bob is a decent bloke, he'll cover some of the cost, even though that wasn't part of the agreement. It's unfortunate that he ended up with 5 points on his licence, but he agreed to take the 3 points, and then he fucked up by not sufficiently checking his mail for important legal notices relating to the points.

If he isn't such a decent bloke, Bob will avoid contributing anything at all towards the cost in both cases, because of a technicality, even though it was partly his fault. (Alex is partly to blame for speeding in the first place, and for letting his friend do things that he was supposed to do himself).

Hanover February 04, 2017 at 12:39 #52837 0 likes

Some legal analysis: As to #1, a contract requires consideration, meaning there must be an exchange of something of value in order for a contract to be valid. Bob received nothing in return for his favor (as in, had Alex paid Bob money to take the points), so his agreement was a gift and unenforceable. However, the law does recognize the doctrine of detrimental reliance as a substitute for consideration. That is, while Bob gifted his acceptance of points to Alex, Alex relied to his detriment on that promise to see it through, and Bob failed to perform, resulting in damages to Alex. So, judgment for Alex for all costs arising from Bob's breach.

brotherpoll February 06, 2017 at 23:08 #53378 0 likes

I appreciate the legal analysis, but the reason I posted on this forum, was not to approach it from a legal viewpoint, but more from what people consider fair and what would be considered the right outcome between responsible, reasonable individuals :)

Numi Who February 18, 2017 at 00:44 #55565 0 likes

Reply to brotherpoll
Reply to brotherpoll

In the first case Bob's oversight was his responsibility, and the extra expenses were caused by him, hence he should bear the costs of his actions.

In the second case Alex was wrong to let Bob drive his vehicle when it was so low on oil without informing Bob. If Alex did not know, and if Alex did not know the extent of Bob's familiarity with motors, then that was Alex's own negligence on both accounts, and Bob should not have to pay for Alex's negligence on either account.

So in both cases it comes down to whose actions were the ROOT CAUSE of the results in question. In both cases, the root causes were negligence - Bob's in the first case and Alex's in the second.