"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

Can you not read plain English? Simplifying what I said:

Yes I can read plain English and what I am saying is that your statement
of
the law in this case is wrong.

He has a claim for the REPLACEMENT cost of his shirt in the
condition that it was.

Indeed and that means effectively the second-hand value that is likely to
be
very small.

You cannot demand that he spends hours of time and many pounds
of money searching second-hand shops for a suitable replacement,
but you can refuse to pay for the "worn" aspect of the shirt.

I demanded nothing! I simply stated that if YOU wanted to establish what
the
open market value of second-hand shirts was then a charity shop would give
you a reasonable idea of how much they were worth. At no time did I
suggest
that the person concerned should take that they should seek a replacement
there. It seems to me that it is you that cannot comprehend plain English.
If it went to court and the claimant won he would would not get more than
the open market value.

A fiver is insulting.

Far from it. It is a realistic statement of the likely worth of the
garment
on the open market.



If it went to (small claims) court and he won, your outlay most probably
would not be limited to the amount the court considered appropriate for
replacement of the damaged article and any consequential losses. The court
would probably consider adding the costs of bringing the action, attending
the court, etc. Add to that your own defence costs, including the value of
the time wasted, and possibly the adverse publicity springing from a
decision against you being reported, and the aggregate is the sum to be
compared with whatever it might cost to settle 'amicably', without conceding
liability.

Considering the way the courts have been developing 'duty of care', would
you be surprised if a court were to find that a party merrily slapping ink
on members of the public should reasonably have foreseen a risk of transfer
of the ink to clothing?