I just got back from a court case (in which I was the defendant) involving 10 photgraphs that I borrowed from a relative. I made copies, and sent them to various other relatives. I lost the originals, and only had the copies. The relative took me to court for a total of $2000 or the return of the pictures (which I no longer have). The plaintiff did not want copies, either.
His judgment: For the plaintiff. The full $2000.
:dubious:
:eek: 
This was a relative that sued?! Geeze, that’s awful. I’m sorry that things turned out this way for you.
Were they really valuable in some way? Or just regular pictures that you lost? I hope that they were collectible or something at least.
Were the pictures of the relative in a compromising position?
Were they pictures of the relative? If so, I’m thinking some apporpriate Photshopping is in order.
Wow! $2000.00 for 10 pictures?!!! That IS expensive. Sorry! That said, though, maybe next time you’ll be more careful with borrowed property. Is this a relative you dislike (before the court case)? If so, now you’ll probably never need to see them again.
Were they 8 by 10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was?
Wow! Were they worth $2000? :dubious:
I mean, you’re talking about pictures, right? Your relative isn’t like, Jasper Johns, right?
Wre these wedding pictures?
I was thinking of that before I opened the thread.
Was it like Judge Mathis, Earl?
Perhaps they were antique photos that are irreplaceable?
Didn’t the guy have the negatives? Why should you be blamed for his poor judgement? It’s not like you agreed that if you lost the pics you’d pay him $2000…did you?
I’d go cause my relative to need more than $2000 worth of dental work if they did that to me.
If they sued you or lost your pictures?
I’m betting on the judge. There’s more to the story, and it’s not flattering.
These were all photos of various family members, dating from 35-65 years ago. When the judge asked me for my statement, one of the things I mentioned was that I thought that $2000 was a little extreme (especially when I had copies that were of better quality, as they were not made on old paper). Some I could tell had been shot with a Kodak Instamatic 126 camera. The older ones, I don’t know, probably a Brownie.
I didn’t take it as a good sign when the judge said, “I don’t think that’s enough. These are irreplaceable.” :eek: Then he went on to tell a story about a treasured photograph that he had had stolen from his own office desk, and how much he missed that photo.
This was kinda weird. We were in his office for about 15-20 minutes. Until the last two or three minutes, I thought things were going my way. It seemed to turn when the relative (an aunt) showed the blank spots in her photo album, and told the judge that she didn’t want copies because a) she wanted her originals, and b) they wouldn’t fit in the same spots.
Oh, well. Live and learn.
Were they professional photos or snapshots?
Oh, most definitely snapshots.
Yeah, you were doomed when she trotted out the blank spots in the photo album. I can see the wrinkly plastic sheeting and sunburned edges around the white squares now.
This could sooooo be an episode of “My Name Is Earl.”
Still – two grand? OUCH.
Were these high quality copies, at least?
And was this judge in the midlands, the piedmont or the lowcountry? This smells like some ol’ midlands justice to me.
Christmas Card List;
Mother
Father
Brother
Sister
[del]Aunt[/del]