Who pays what?

[ifoundthebread]

As the title suggests. Who pays what in this scenario.

A lends an item off B to be used during an alcohol fuelled 21st birthday party. C breaks this item while drunk. B tells A item cost £100 when it was bought, C gives A £100 to order a new one to give back to B. Item is no longer available and closest one found is £150. Should C cough up the extra £50 to buy a replacement or has C payed enough as that is what the broken item was worth.

B said £100 so that’s what C paid. If B had said that it would cost £150 to replace in the beginning would C have automatically coughed up the full cost?

B had a gazebo, C broke it

If C wont pay, then A has to, and should take it as a relatively small cost to see what an arse C is

A's responsibility to pay B. Depending on how the damage was caused it's C's responsibility to pay A

A should look into buying a new gazebo for B. B shouldn’t have to pay anything for a new one. A needs to use Cs £100 and find something either the same as or better. Prime day sales are on. Unless it was a specific brand that B bought for the name then I shouldn’t think it needs to be the exact same gazebo does it? Perhaps A and C could work together to find a replacement that does all that the original one did and is the same size and quality and then send a selection of options to B and ask if any of those would be a good replacement?
Otherwise I honestly think a and c should be responsible for paying £150 for a new gazebo and learn to hold their drink a bit better.

C is unlucky it's increased in price but could have been lucky and found it decreased when replacing. They need to replace either with A contributing or not.

Was C drunk and staggering as falling into it from pissing around would be a quick way to break it.

B shouldn't be out of a gazebo because her/his friends were irresponsible and broke it.

What are a and c thoughts OP?

The owner shouldn't be out of pocket in any way, as s/he is the 'victim' in this. It's up to the other two people to make it right.

If that means splitting the remaining £50 between the two of them, or one of them paying £50 and the other £100, or whatever division they come up, but regardless, the owner shouldn't be contributing at all.

Hmm. A gazebo can be broken accidentally, by tripping and falling on it, not necessarily drunkenly. But B has every right to assume it would come back to them in the condition it was given, as it's not generally the kind of thing that gets broken.

I think C and A between them need to stump up the remaining £50. B should get back exactly the gazebo they lent. If it's no longer in the sale then that's tough.

Ridiculous the comments on your wording - it's clear you were using regional dialect and I'm not from anywhere near your area.

C should cough up. A lent it to B, who didn't do anything to it. C broke the item - it doesn't matter who owns it, they broke it. So they should pay the £100 plus whatever extra it now costs if that model is no longer available at that price.

A however could be kind and accept that when you lend someone something, it comes with a risk and perhaps see if there's something more suitable within the original budget. There are plenty of gazebos out there for £100.

Sorry got my A and B muddled the wrong way!

Lend an item off may be regional and very common when I was growing up

C has paid..B has to accept it was leant for a high risk event. It was not new. Annoying as it may be B should pay the difference. B should shop around for a suitable replacement as gazebos can be cheaper online or end of season.

Lend an item is really well used where I come from in the North East.

Bottom line is you lend something, you should get it back.
Cost should be irrelevant. The item should be returned, and whenever broke it should replace it.

Sorry, that is a lot of shoulds...

B needs to have the item replaced. If the item was now £80, A and C would not be expected to give be £100 as that is more than what the replacement costs. By the same logic, £100 no longer gets B a replacement, therefore they need to give B £150.

The item should be replaced.

Another NE'r here and lend is very commonly used

To answer the question £100 seems fair

C should pay the full amount of £150 as they broke the item. It's irrelevant that it originally cost less - that's not going to help A, is it!

C paid the full value of the item (which is presumably more than the item would be worth as it was used).

C has been more than reasonable.

A could offer the additional £50 but if B knew where the item was being used, they knew the risks.

B needs their gazebo replaced - how A and C achieve this is irrelevent.

The item should be replaced by A and B. It does t have to be new. Gazebos Cary massively in quality so the replacement should be similar quality.

The sales are on - is it possible to find one on sale and save the day! Can you post the details of the gazebo then posters might help you find a bargain.

It depends on why an item that originally cost £100 now costs £150. If it’s because B got lucky and found a special offer that’s now over, that’s A and C’s hard luck - they still owe B a replacement regardless of price. If it’s because B bought it ten years ago, she probably has to accept that she’s pushing her luck to expect a brand new replacement for £50 more.

I also think YABU for saying B lent A the gazebo for ‘an alcohol-fuelled party’. It implies it’s her own fault it got broken when, alcohol-fuelled or not, you could all have been more careful.

B should get a gazebo. If the damage was accidental A and C should share the cost. If C was being an idiot, they should pay. Either way the end result needs to be that C still has a gazebo.

Sorry B should have a gazebo not C

Surely a gazebo can be repaired?