saejin

This is not part of any school work. It is a simplified, hypothetical question meant to help understand justice.

As the Judge, you are to judge what should the settlement be for each person? (Not what should they have done in the first place, or what they should do now to find an agreement.)

Given two people, Person_A and Person_B, two separate people with a written agreement for their assets to remain separate even when commingled. This is their only written agreement. The two people open and share a common investment account . Person_A puts $100 in the shared investment account.

Person_B wanted to take a class, to get a better job and takes the $100 out of the account spends it on the class, gets the better job and later puts $80 back in the account.

After some time they decide to close the account and settle ownership. When they close the account the account has accumulated a balance of $120. If the full $100 had remained in the account the full time the account would have accumulated a balance of $200.

POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT SCENARIOS:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A) Person_B claims the $120, because the accumulation came from Person_B's money, Person_A's money had been spent with Person_A's knowledge and with no written agreement to return the money, so it was a loss or a gift.

Take: Person_A=0 Person_B=$120 Net: Person_A=-$100 Person_B=$140 (+education)

Should Person_A lose ALL money because Person_B was allowed access to the money and took it without a written contract to return it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B) The inputs are untraceable and should be split $60 each.

Take: Person_A=$60, Person_B=$60 Net=$Person_A=-$40 Person_B=$80 (+education)

Should Person_A lose money and Person_B profit from the loss?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C) $180 Total was put in, $120 Came out, with Person_A getting (100/180)*120= $66.66 from the investment, and Person_B getting (80/180)*120= $53.33 from the investment and still owing Person_A $20

Take: Person_A=$86.33 Person_B=$33.33 Net: Person_B=-$16.33 Person_A=+33.33 (+education)

Should Person_A lose money for giving Person_B access, while Person_B profits from the access?

Person_B did not really invest anything, but had use of Person_A's money, which cost the account interest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D) Person_A should get original $100 back, then the profit should be split

Take: Person_A=$110 Person_B=$10, Net: Person_A=$10 Person_B=$30 (+education)

Person_B did not really invest anything, but the use of Person_A's money, which cost interest.

E) Person_B only took $20 that was not returned, so Person_B only owes Person_A $20 more.

Take: Person_A=$120, Person_B=-$20 Net: Person_A=$20 Person_B=$10 (+education)

Is it fair for Person_A to profit, and Person_B make nothing but an education?

F) If Person_B had not taken Person_A's $100, the full $100 would have been invested and returned $200, so Person_B should owe Person_A $200-$120=$80 to cover the losses caused.

Take: Person_A=$200, Person_B= -$80 Net: Person_A=$100 Person_B=-$80 (+education)

Is it fair for Person_A to come out with money, and Person_B to come out with a debt?

G) If Person_B had not taken Person_A's $100, the full $100 would have been invested and returned $200, so Person_B should owe Person_A $200-$120=$80+$20 for the profit of alternately investing Person_A's money into Person_B's education.

Take: Person_A=$220, Person_B= -$100 Net: Person_A=$120 Person_B=-$100 (+education)

Person_A took was put at risk, and had to forgo all other options for investment. Person_B should share the value of the profit from taking the money and pay the full value of the education obtained.

Talking points:

1) In all cases, Person_B received an education, something Person_B valued at $100 or more.

2) Person_B did not have money out of pocket, and did not return all the money withdrawn.

3) Person_A knew the money was withdrawn, and did not seek a repayment contract, so the money could be construed as a gift.

4) What if the final accumulation was $60 at a net loss, and the final value if Person_B had not withdrawn the money would have been even less, $30, so person_B withdraw can be considered to have saved $30. Does your judgment ruling still hold.

Which settlement would you select? Are there other, more just, settlements? Make a short statement that summarizes what made your decision the most just decision.

This is not homework or for any school. I am trying to reason out a larger question for myself, and want to get a broader perspective from people without a buck in the answer like a lawyer has.

Adi and Kelly, two separation people share a common money account . (Adi puts $100 in a shared account. Kelly wanted to take a class, to get a better job and takes the $100 out of the account spends it on the class, gets the better job and later puts $80 back in the account.

If the full $100 had been in the account for the whole time the return would have been $200.

The closing balance was $120. Who should the settlement be?

A) Kelly claims the $120, because it came from Kelly's money, Adi's being spent as a gift.

Take: Adi=0 Kelly=$120 Net: Adi=-$100 Kelly=$120

Should Adi lose ALL money because Kelly was allowed access and took it?

B) The inputs are untraceable and should be split $60 each.

Take: Adi=$60, Kelly=$60 Net=$Adi=-$40 Kelly=+40

Should Adi lose money and Kelly profit from the loss?

C) $180 Total was put in, $120 Came out, with Addi getting (100/180)*120= $66.66 from the investment, and Kelly getting (80/180)*120= $53.33 from the investment and still owing Adi $20

Take: Adi=$86.33 Kelly=$33.33 Net: Kelly=-$16.33 Adi=+13.33

Should Adi lose money for giving Kelly access, while Kelly profits from the access?

Kelly did not really invest anything, but the use of Adi's money cost interest.

D) Adi should get original $100 back, then the profit should be split

Take: Adi=$110 Kelly=$10, Net: Adi=$10 Kelly=$10

Kelly did not really invest anything, but the use of Adi's money cost interest.

E) Carry only took $20 that was not returned, so Carry only owes Adi $20 more.

Take: Adi=$120, Kelly=-$20 Net: Adi=$20 Kelly=$0

Is it fair for Adi to profit, and Kelly make nothing?

F) If Kelly had not taken Adi's $100, the full $100 would have been invested and returned $200, so Kelly should owe Adi $200-$120=$80 to cover the losses caused.

Take: Adi=$200, Kelly= -$80 Net: Adi=$200 Kelly=-$80

Is it fair for Adi to come out with money, and Kelly to come out with a debt?

Are there other settlements? Which would you select? What statement summarizes what makes your decision just?

I am planning on running a 200 amp service feed barried parallel to a 2 inch conduit filled with Cat5 Network cables.

Is there a specification for how far apart they must be to prevent the network cables from being effected by the 200 amp power reed?

Have you ever gone to a guys house for the first time and the lights are low, and soft music is playing, and candles are lit, and the house is all neat and tidy, and insense is lit and their is wine on ice with two glasses, and you think huh... he was expecting somone... anyone... that is what I think when I first see a girl and she is shaved... she was planning on entertaining, she often entertains this way, and I am not special. Does shaved pubes make you feel more or less romantic?

Does anyone know of a way to combine several DSL feeds so that you get a combined band width of several DSL capacities?

The idea is that in an apartment everyone has wireless but no one uses all the bandwidth and should be able to share it out to the rest of the complex when they are not using it so that everyone got more than they pay for.