crystal scan
Banned
Professur said:
so
Would you sue to get your dog back?
- Thread starter greenfreak
- Start date
so
crystal scan
Banned
JJR512
New Member
I'm siding with the Galantes here.
They got into a bad situation and thought they had found someone they could trust to help get them through one part of it. They trusted the Workmans to take care of their dog for a while and to give him back when they got their situation straightened out. The Workmans decided they wanted to keep the dog and told the Galantes to get lost.
I would only side with the Workmans if they had had the dog examined very soon after receiving him from the Galantes and had a vet's official opinion stating that the dog had been poorly cared for, mistreated, etc.; in other words, saying that the Galantes were unfit to take care of the dog.
I don't believe the money is relevant. I realize I can be a bit naive, but I believe them when they say the money is not important. You sue for what you want, and you tack on a large money amount as well. A jury rarely gives the full amount asked for, so you always ask for more than you hope to get, so when they give you less than you ask for, hopefully it's close to what you want. I think that the Galantes should be awarded compensation for their expenses related to the case, and that should be sufficient. If the Galantes maintain that all they really want is the dog back, then getting the dog back should be sufficient to heal their mental anguish.
They got into a bad situation and thought they had found someone they could trust to help get them through one part of it. They trusted the Workmans to take care of their dog for a while and to give him back when they got their situation straightened out. The Workmans decided they wanted to keep the dog and told the Galantes to get lost.
I would only side with the Workmans if they had had the dog examined very soon after receiving him from the Galantes and had a vet's official opinion stating that the dog had been poorly cared for, mistreated, etc.; in other words, saying that the Galantes were unfit to take care of the dog.
I don't believe the money is relevant. I realize I can be a bit naive, but I believe them when they say the money is not important. You sue for what you want, and you tack on a large money amount as well. A jury rarely gives the full amount asked for, so you always ask for more than you hope to get, so when they give you less than you ask for, hopefully it's close to what you want. I think that the Galantes should be awarded compensation for their expenses related to the case, and that should be sufficient. If the Galantes maintain that all they really want is the dog back, then getting the dog back should be sufficient to heal their mental anguish.
JJR512
New Member
To clarify my point of view, I feel that the Workmans were in this situation just like foster parents. They were foster parents for the dog. Foster parents of a child cannot just decide they like the kid and are going to keep him/her. They can decide they want to keep the kid but they can't just do it; they have to file for adoption and go through a whole process. Now, there is no adoption process for a dog. A dog is more like property. But even with property you can't just decide to keep something that someone has loaned you.
I also believe the Galantes showed their true intentions when they turned down the thousand bucks so they could pursue getting their dog back.
I also believe the Galantes showed their true intentions when they turned down the thousand bucks so they could pursue getting their dog back.
