Provider call me back one of my bills was counterfeit

Sometimes you gotta take the loss and go on your way. Originally Posted by ALEADallas

Better words were never said.

Anone, you're right. I pulled that one out of my ass and remembered the sentiment part without the full concept flushed out. Frankly I never spent much time on Hume and shouldn't have used him. Both because I don't know enough and because its the wrong argument for this instance. Thanks for the schoolin'. Don't be so pompous. Being smart AND nice is even better than just being smart.

You must agree that there is philosophical support in Kant's call to moral duty - that something isn't really moral if it is done from a place of selfishness or is self serving? Therefore, true moral worth can only be had when there is no value proposition and is done by a sense of duty. Though I haven't actually done the math, this seems to be a situation of imperfect duty.

In any case, I won't be responding. I wish you all well. I'm going to keep doing the right thing: living like I am, because its working for me. Those that aren't very happy (and there's a bunch on this thread) may wish to reconsider the 'goes around, comes around' concept.

Don't be so pompous. Being smart AND nice is even better than just being smart. Originally Posted by Sydneyb

Hmmmmm. . .

Wow! This thread has sure gone pear-shape. Sydneyb, you should probably stop trying to quote David Hume, because you are doing him an incredible disservice. Ironically, he was not a very moral person himself, and even tried to excuse his vices by attacking traditional ethics and morality with his argument of induction and attempting to assert that morality is decided not by reason, but rather sentiment. He claimed that natural order and reason had much less to do with morality than individual passion.

Morality based on sentiment could be used in this manner, but it would be exactly what you are arguing against--it would justify and further strengthen CT's position. As described, the OP had no intention of wrongdoing here. His motives are pure. He was not made aware of the "POSSIBLE" (the provider did not provide proof that the bill actually came from him nor did she offer him a copy of the bank's fraud report) counterfeit bill until long after the event. therefore, according to Hume, the hobbyists does not even owe her an apology, much less repayment.

Of course, I have always believed David Hume was a bit of a selfish idiot, so I find it amusing you are quoting him to preach at hobbyists.

I also find it amusing that you call CT's argument self-serving, and then in the next sentence defend the self-serving position of the provider by saying "needs the money more" and therefore the gent should cough off up the correction.

In closing, let's ask David what he would say, if he was not worm's food:

"Actions are, by their very nature, temporary and perishing; and where they proceed not from some cause in the character and disposition of the person who performed them, they can neither redound to his honour, if good; nor infamy, if evil"

In other words, the OP did not intend to hurt the provider, therefore he is blameless, according to Hume. This is a totally different scenario than say the slime ball that stuffs a white envelope with paper strips, or perhaps like that alert thread about the sleazy guy that cheats women by using a $100 bill wrapped around $1.00 bills in a rubber-banded bundle to them as he escorts them to the elevator.

Now excuse me, but it is Sunday morning and I need to go to church and repent for paying money to a woman earlier this week to do unnatural things to me that my wife is unwilling to do.

Originally Posted by ANONONE

You are correct on how Hume would view this transaction. Indeed, that is exactly the way that the law views it. Unless the counterfeit note was knowingly passed by the buyer of the service, the loss falls on the seller who accepted the note in the transaction. The loss falls on the seller as it was she that did not exercise appropriate diligence in assuring that the note was genuine.

However, to call Hume an idiot, does him a great disservice. Hume was and is an very important thinker. His contributions to the "Scottish Enlightenment" are beyond dispute. Many other later philosophers were greatly influence by Hume, not the least of which were Kant and Schopenhauer. And by the way, among the others who were moral sentimentalist was Adam Smith. No fool he.

I stated that he was a selfish idiot. Not an ordinary idiot. His entire attack on traditional morality was based on a disagreement he had during his appointment with the Church of Scotland. He believed it was perfectly okay to indulge in several scandalous affairs with women and became upset when they attempted to remove him from his appointment and discredit him for the infidelity. He questioned their authority to label him so or even define the moral right or wrong of his adultery. That was when it all started--his philosophical attack was motivated out of his need to maintain his position to support his decadent lifestyle.

Talk about irony; funny that Hume is being discussed on this board. . .

Talk about irony; funny that Hume is being discussed on this board. . . Originally Posted by ANONONE

Probably more appropriate than ironic.

[BTW, do you think the OP ever thought this thread would run the gamut from a counterfeit donation, to the law regarding donations, to ethics, to a discussion of heavy-hitter philosophers when he started the thread?]

http://www.cosmoloan.com/money-manag...eit-money.html

See #8 (not in bold) Very interesting........

This happend to me once. Not only did the bank keep the bill, the Secret Service contacted me and requested me come in. It was quite embarrassing as I had to explain where I got the bill. I said I was a nude model and didn't keep records of my clients. His eyebrows were raised the whole time we talked as if he were thinking "WTF". On my way out all the other agents were peeking from doorways and such, trying to get a look. I just smiled. I did know who gave me the bill but gave him the benefit of the doubt and didn't ask him to replace the $.

http://www.moneyfactory.com/

http://www.treas.gov/offices/domesti...-suspect.shtml

This happend to me once. Not only did the bank keep the bill, the Secret Service contacted me and requested me come in. It was quite embarrassing as I had to explain where I got the bill. I said I was a nude model and didn't keep records of my clients. His eyebrows were raised the whole time we talked as if he were thinking "WTF". On my way out all the other agents were peeking from doorways and such, trying to get a look. I just smiled. I did know who gave me the bill but gave him the benefit of the doubt and didn't ask him to replace the $. Originally Posted by Sweet Heather

And that's the best excuse you could come up with?

I stated that he was a selfish idiot. Not an ordinary idiot. His entire attack on traditional morality was based on a disagreement he had during his appointment with the Church of Scotland. He believed it was perfectly okay to indulge in several scandalous affairs with women and became upset when they attempted to remove him from his appointment and discredit him for the infidelity. He questioned their authority to label him so or even define the moral right or wrong of his adultery. That was when it all started--his philosophical attack was motivated out of his need to maintain his position to support his decadent lifestyle.

Talk about irony; funny that Hume is being discussed on this board. . . Originally Posted by ANONONE

I'm with Hume. How dare the old Kirk judge somebody as smart as Hume for chasing strange pussy. Isn't that what we're all about here! A man after my own heart.

Assuming al linfor given is correct,

He actualy is be on the hook for the 100. He has an obligation to pay for services rendered which he did not do. While it may be an honest error, it still boils down to not paying for services rendered. Of course, he has recourse against who ever gave him the bad bill. This has nothing to do with what services or product were purchased, its a contract law issue. She delivered her part, he did not. Why should she suffer because of his being cheated at some point in the past? Did a little checking and the law is pretty clear on this point. Might suck for him, but someone has to assume the loss.

Of course, in this case, some level of compromise might be reached if both parties are interested. Given the nature of the transaction, it does make it hard for her to push the issue. If either is interested in seeing the other again, they should work out something.

Assuming al linfor given is correct,

He actualy is be on the hook for the 100. He has an obligation to pay for services rendered which he did not do. While it may be an honest error, it still boils down to not paying for services rendered. Of course, he has recourse against who ever gave him the bad bill. This has nothing to do with what services or product were purchased, its a contract law issue. She delivered her part, he did not. Why should she suffer because of his being cheated at some point in the past? Did a little checking and the law is pretty clear on this point. Might suck for him, but someone has to assume the loss.

Of course, in this case, some level of compromise might be reached if both parties are interested. Given the nature of the transaction, it does make it hard for her to push the issue. If either is interested in seeing the other again, they should work out something. Originally Posted by Bubba3452

Interesting....

IANAL, ...& as you point out in real life pragmatism trumps the law any day...& I haven't researched case law...

...but if she accepted the bill as partial or full payment for services rendered isn't he off the hook?

...& if we are getting all legal about this, wouldn't the burden be on her to prove that of the say 25 Ben Franklins she handles in a week, this rogue one came from him?

I have seen this hobbyist... I'm not sure if i like the fact of him questioning this or not.

Seen a very well known provider got a text an hour later saying that one of the Franklin's was counterfeit. What is the fair thing to do? Don't see this girl that often the service is ok ,and i don't make a lot of money
Her bank took the bill and would not give it back. Originally Posted by flyinghillbilly

And that's the best excuse you could come up with? Originally Posted by Woody of TX

Exactly what "excuse" are you talking about?

This happend to me once. Not only did the bank keep the bill, the Secret Service contacted me and requested me come in. It was quite embarrassing as I had to explain where I got the bill. I said I was a nude model and didn't keep records of my clients. His eyebrows were raised the whole time we talked as if he were thinking "WTF". On my way out all the other agents were peeking from doorways and such, trying to get a look. I just smiled. I did know who gave me the bill but gave him the benefit of the doubt and didn't ask him to replace the $. Originally Posted by Sweet Heather

DID YOU WEAR PANTIES TO THE INTERVIEW? YOU ARE MUCH TOO SWEET!
JACK