Who can be sued

[Ignorantwithlaw]

I wrote a check to a friend of mine who was supposed to order some electronics from his father. After not receiving the items I requested, I asked for my money to be refunded. It has been 9 months and I have not received either. I want to file small claims, but who do I file against? My friend or his father?.... California

 

[NIV]

I wrote a check to a friend of mine who was supposed to order some electronics from his father. After not receiving the items I requested, I asked for my money to be refunded. It has been 9 months and I have not received either. I want to file small claims, but who do I file against? My friend or his father?.... California

Sue them both. The friend for conversion and the father for the conversion of his agent. You will need to prove why you believed the friend was the agent of the father if you sue the father.

 

[Zigner]

I wrote a check to a friend of mine who was supposed to order some electronics from his father. After not receiving the items I requested, I asked for my money to be refunded. It has been 9 months and I have not received either. I want to file small claims, but who do I file against? My friend or his father?.... California

You sue the guy you contracted with for the parts. The father isn't a party to the deal you made with your friend.

 

[Zigner]

Sue them both. The friend for conversion and the father for the conversion of his agent. You will need to prove why you believed the friend was the agent of the father if you sue the father.

Why would you suggest this when we have been given NO information to even remotely lead us to believe that the friend was an agent of his father. In fact, based only on what we've been told, suing them both could lead to sanctions against the OP.

 

[NIV]

Why would you suggest this when we have been given NO information to even remotely lead us to believe that the friend was an agent of his father. In fact, based only on what we've been told, suing them both could lead to sanctions against the OP.

There were only three sentences in what I wrote. It shouldn't be considered heaving lifting to get all the way to the third before answering in the manner you did.

 

[Zigner]

There were only three sentences in what I wrote. It shouldn't be considered heaving lifting to get all the way to the third before answering in the manner you did.

You started out by advising the OP to sue them both. Yes, you inserted a caveat in your third sentence, but the advice to sue the father should never have been mentioned.

 

[NIV]

You started out by advising the OP to sue them both. Yes, you inserted a caveat in your third sentence, but the advice to sue the father should never have been mentioned.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. If the child can't come up with the money it might be malpractice, but, it IS an opinion.

 

[quincy]

I wrote a check to a friend of mine who was supposed to order some electronics from his father. After not receiving the items I requested, I asked for my money to be refunded. It has been 9 months and I have not received either. I want to file small claims, but who do I file against? My friend or his father?.... California

I agree with Zigner.

Your contract is with your friend so you would file suit against the friend. If your friend gave the money to his father, your friend can turn around and sue his dad.

 

[NIV]

OP, both the other posters have made an inherently factual determination in regards to agency and found it lacking. There are any of a number of potential agency issues here that arise when one buys the property of a third party through an intermediary. You'd need to find something the father did to have you believe he was the one you were dealing with to be successful through him.

Does friend do this for others regularly?
Is friend employed by father?
Was father notified of the issue? If so, what did he do?

And, importantly but not a legal issue:
Does friend have the resources to pay you back if you were to win?

 

[Zigner]

If you pay a plumber to order a p-trap for you and the p-trap never comes in...do you sue the plumber, the supplier of the p-trap, or both?



(You sue the plumber, of course.)

 

[quincy]

OP, both the other posters have made an inherently factual determination in regards to agency and found it lacking. There are any of a number of potential agency issues here that arise when one buys the property of a third party through an intermediary. You'd need to find something the father did to have you believe he was the one you were dealing with to be successful through him.

Does friend do this for others regularly?
Is friend employed by father?
Was father notified of the issue? If so, what did he do?

And, importantly but not a legal issue:
Does friend have the resources to pay you back if you were to win?

NIV, the only contract that we know exists is the one between Ignorantwithlaw and his friend.

There has been no indication given that the friend's father was a party to this agreement. In fact, the friend's father may have no knowledge at all of the agreement.

I agree that there could be all sorts of other facts that can be added to change this but, as it stands, the only one Ignorantwithlaw can sue for the return of his money is his friend.

 

[NIV]

NIV, the only contract that we know exists is the one between Ignorantwithlaw and his friend.

There has been no indication given that the friend's father was a party to this agreement. In fact, the friend's father may have no knowledge at all of the agreement.

I agree that there could be all sorts of other facts that can be added to change this but, as it stands, the only one Ignorantwithlaw can sue for the return of his money is his friend.

What "agreement" are we suing on again? Has it been breached? If we are going to dismiss reasonable assumptions because they are not stated in the question's facts, I don't know we have a contract with the the friend. (Which is why I suggest the suit be for conversion and not a breach of contract. Even then, that's just a guess.) LOTS of facts would need to be known about this, starting as to what has happened.

1. Were OP and friend talking and friend offer to sell a widget to OP. OP, knowing friend's father makes widgets believes it will come from father and agrees.

is different from;

2. OP comes up to friend and father and offers to buy widget from father. Later gives check to friend to pay for widget and complete the deal as friend mentions he will see father later.

I agree that WHAT happened is essential to understanding the legalities of the situation. I don't agree the bringing up of the only issue the OP asked about is improper just because some reasonable assumption must be made to get there, especially when we have no idea as to if any potential contract/agreement has been breached without a few assumptions as well.

 

[Zigner]

I suppose you can insert any set of hypothetical "facts" that you'd like...

 

[NIV]

I suppose you can insert any set of hypothetical "facts" that you'd like...

I think you missed the main point. I knew I should not have gone over three sentences to try and explain.

You are assuming "hypothetical "facts"" as well.

 

[Zigner]

I think you missed the main point. I knew I should not have gone over three sentences to try and explain.

You are assuming "hypothetical "facts"" as well.

No, I'm basing my answer on exactly the facts we were given.