Help me out here

[Oversosoon]

A long time ago, A was leaving the country and getting rid of stuff. She had a bike which she gave to B. After a while, B found she wasn't really using the bike and let C use it. After a while the bike got stolen. B asked C for compensation. C refused on the grounds that B hadn't paid anything for it herself. Who was right, B or C?

I think regardless of whether B had paid for it or not, if she hadn't given it to C then C owes her a bike.

C

Depends on the situation. Was it left unlocked somewhere? Can C claim on their home insurance for it?

B. C needs to replace the bike, it was in their possession and their responsibility. It's academic whether B paid for it or not, B would be given a replacement bike of similar value

How long had C been using the bike?

Did b make it clear to c that the bike was on loan?
If so then c should give them some kind of compensation.

C does have a point though, b is not out of pocket.

B neither paid for the bike or used the bike, so while they might technically have a case for C to replace it, B would be a bit of a dick to insist on it.

B.

b is not out of pocket.

But they are out of a bike... albeit one they didn’t use and had loaned to C. I can’t quite make my mind up with this.

C

Thanks for the replies. You'll soon see which one I am!

GreenLeafTurnip I guess I was equating the way A had let B have it, with the way B had let C have it, in other words, it wasn't a 'gift' either time.

SpookyNoise It was locked up. C was a student and didn't have any insurance.

RunningFromInsanity About a year I think. It was a long time ago.

B, assuming they lent the bike to C. It doesn't matter whether B received it as a gift or bought it. They owned the bike. Therefore it is reasonable to expect to have it, or one of similar value, returned to them.

C is being a dick to refuse to return what they borrowed or a replacement if they lost/broke/etc the one they were lent.

Depends if it was given or lent to C.

Was it a decent bike? Did c report the theft to police?

Stolen bikes do frequently turn up somewhere dumped.

If I was C I think I’d offer half.

If I was B I wouldn’t accept it.

Is OP going to turn out to be A and wants the bike back?

If you borrow something and it gets stolen then it's your responsibility to at least offer to replace it or pay something.

If B had only lent the bike to C then B owned it and should be able to claim for the theft on their own insurance. It wasn't lost or broken it was stolen.

C doesn’t owe compensation. B lent the bike to C. C is only responsible for anything within their control. Theft, accident, they owe nothing to B. Because theft/accident are a known risk of having a bike and B accepted that risk might happen regardless of whether B is using bike or the person they lent it to. If B didn’t want to take that risk, B as the owner should have insured the bike. It may even be insured on Bs home contents insurance policy for all I know.

Lent for year? What's the value of a second hand bike?

B lent something (bike, but could be posession) and C now cannot return it. For whatever reason, C needs to compensate B. It's not B's fault C didn't take out insurance. B might not be out money but they now don't have a bike. C is wrong.

I meant to say it could be any possession.

This needs to be clearer. A gave the bike to B? So it was by then the property of B? And then B ‘let C use it’? Under what conditions?

C is right. It would be a bit different if B actually needed the bike, but she wasn't using it anyway.

If this was me and my friends, I'd expect C to offer something, and B to turn it down.

If I was B, I’d be miffed but I wouldn’t asked for compensation (probably because I’m a wimp)

If I was C, I’d feel really guilty and offer compensation or try and find a new second hand bike to replace it.

It’s irrelevant that B wasn’t using the bike at the time, assuming it was clear that it was a loan, the responsibility to replace something lies with the loanee I think.