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?

B is right.

C owes B an equivalent (used) bike.

However, if C is not an arsehole, B should consider that she didn’t pay for and didn’t use the bike, so she’d be a bit of an arsehole herself to insist.

Whether C should have had insurance, depends on the value of the bike, in my opinion. Also I’d consider (morally, not legally!) their relative incomes. If C is rolling in it, it’s taking the piss not to make the gesture.

There’s a fair possibility that a bike will be stolen, so I think B should have considered that too, and requested C get insurance if she borrow it.

I’ve learnt a motorhome to a friend before - I asked them to take out their own fully comp temporary policy.

C is in the right IMO. C locked it up so clearly took care for the bike. Said bike was then stolen through no cause of C's own. B got the bike for free and didn't really use it. Would B have ever wanted that bike back had it not be stolen? I cant imagine so.

If I was C I would replace the bike. It was Bs bike irrespective of whether B had paid for it

Did B lend or give C the bike? Was there ever any talk of returning the bike?

Would B happy with another bike or does she only want the money? That would make her a bit of a CF.

Was B planning to ask for the bike back or had she already asked?

Basically who's right depends on the "contract" they had and whether A is using this just as an easy opportunity to make some cash.

A gave B £10
B lent C £10
£10 was stolen
C owes B £10

If B owns the bike than b should have insurance for their bike. It is not up to c to insure a bike they don’t own

I'd say technically B is correct, however from a friendship / common sense standpoint I'd say C

These replies are giving me great pause for thought. Thank you very much.

SockDrawer That's a really sweet response, I like it!

flaviaritt These are good questions and it's because of this ambiguity that we fell out over it. No conditions were mentioned as I recall. C had been using it for so long that she felt an amount of ownership, and felt it's loss keenly. B didn't need it all that time.

Janaih No, I'm not A.

B was BU for asking for compensation when they hadn't actually lost anything of financial cost to themselves.

These are good questions and it's because of this ambiguity that we fell out over it. No conditions were mentioned as I recall. C had been using it for so long that she felt an amount of ownership, and felt it's loss keenly. B didn't need it all that time.

But ultimately the bike was either given or it wasn’t. What was said at the point of transfer of possession of this (disastrous) locomotive?

Not really a locomotive, is it? Just a vehicle?

B had a bike; now s/he doesn’t. That’s the beginning and end of it. The fact that B didn’t pay for the bike is irrelevant - it was his/hers. If someone lives in an inherited house and a guest damages the property, should they just shrug their shoulders and say ‘Oh well; the house was free anyway’?

I think C took care of the bike by locking it up - it is not their fault it was stolen.
You say neither time it was ‘given’ therefore if anyone is owed a bike it is A and not B.
It wouldn’t surprise me if B wanted the money for the bike and not the bike itself.

These are good questions and it's because of this ambiguity that we fell out over it. No conditions were mentioned as I recall. C had been using it for so long that she felt an amount of ownership, and felt it's loss keenly. B didn't need it all that time.

She didn’t own it though, did she? Her ‘amount of ownership’ was zero. She got free use of a bike for a long time - she was lucky.

C should offer to replace I think. But B should probably only accept a nominal amount towards it, maybe 50% of a second hand replacement.

I think if anything C should not give B cash - and should provide a second hand bike. It doesn’t sound like B actually wants / needs a bike?

However, if it was me as B I’d cut my losses and recognise if I had lent someone something for over a year - I wasn’t getting it back.

Again it's all in the wording.

"You can have my bike" is different from "you can use this bike until x time/ you can borrow my bike/ you can have the bike while ..." .

It depends I'd it was given or lent .
I've been given and lent things over the years .
If I was given something and it broke / stolen/ lost I wouldn't expect the giver to want compensation.
If I was lent something then most definitely I would refund .

Did B give the bike to C?
Would B have ever asked for the bike back had C not lost it?

C

ComeOnBabyHauntMyBubble Milkshake54 and Idontgiveagriffindamn I think the money element was the problem for C. B wanted financial compensation, not a replacement bike (not that C offered!). According to C the only person who should be compensated was A if she ever came back.

Technically B is owed a bike, but since B apparently doesn't need or want a bike and it was stolen through no fault of C's, I think they'd have to be a colossal dick to insist on compensation.

If it was a treasured and much used possession of Bs which C had e.g. left out in the rain and ruined then obviously C would be in the wrong.

B is being a bit of a wanker imho.

On lending the bike to C a poor student who did in fact take care of and attempt to protect said bike, B should have realised that there was a chance said bike may never return. This is a simple risk assessment. If B couldn't afford to lend it and potentially lose it, B shouldn't have allowed C to use it in the first place.

What if said bike was ran over by a car? With C on it? Would B be claiming from Cs estate?

What if said bike broke? Did B retain the duty to repair it on behalf of C?

C took due care of the bike, life happened, an event outside of Cs control. C had no insurable interest, she didn't own the bike. B needed to insure the bike but didn't.

I've just re read your op at you have said after a while I let C use it .
So did B say you can use it but I want it back ? Or did B just say you can use it ? Which could mean you could have it but you need to be clear when giving / lending something.