this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
1175 points (98.5% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
5629 readers
914 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/[email protected] - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/[email protected] - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Someone further up in the thread used the word repossession. Where I am from we typically shorten that term to “repo.” This occurs when you have “bought” a car, but on a finance or payment plan. So you have not paid the full price of the car, instead you are making monthly payments. If you fail to make those monthly payments, the car will be “repo’ed” it will be physically taken away from you. Used to be with a tow truck. Though if they can start it with a key or some electronic means they could do that too. This is not theft. Quite the opposite, the “buyer” is engaging in theft, as they are not paying for the item they agreed to purchase.
So that’s why my understanding of the definition of repo is not theft. But maybe there is a different definition I am not familiar with.
Oh, yes, I agree with you that with that clarified definition of repossession taking the car back is not exactly theft. But you should at least recompense the hirer for the additional money paid months they were paying for the car, which would presumably be a higher rate than if they were renting the car.