On Sep 2, 12:32*pm, Duff wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:40:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:13*pm, Duff wrote:
You say, "I borrowed my friend's..."

*That should read, "I borrowed my EX-FRIEND'S ..."

*I assure you he is definitely NOT *your friend any more. *

It's time to step up to the plate and do what is right. *Which is to
take the mower to the dealer and get it repaired or buy him a new one.

*Legally, you owe it to him anyway, so you might as well make it a
moral obligation too.

How is it that the borrower is morally or legally responsible? * He
had the mower tilted while returning it. *It sounds like that caused
some oil to get into the cylinder and produce some smoke when started
again. *Not the right thing to do, but in my experience, not a big
problem.

The owner of the mower then decided to grossly overfill it with oil
(about a qt, 3 inches on the dipstick). * That's like saying I
returned your car with some soda spilled on the floor mats and then
you decided to drive it into a lake to clean it, so now I'm
responsible for all the repairs.

*It's the law. *Always has been and always will be. *

It's called a constructive bailment and 'extraordinary care is the
standard here. *Here in a nutshell *is the law:
"Bailee's Duty of Care
In all bailment situations, the bailee has a minimum duty of care to
ensure the safety of the property. If the bailee breaches or fails to
uphold that duty, he can be legally liable for damages. A bailee can
also be held liable for conversion if he uses the property without the
bailor's permission, or does not return the property to the bailor
upon request. A higher standard of care is imposed upon a paid bailee,
and there is a lower standard of care imposed upon a bailee in a
gratuitous bailment. With a bailment agreement or contract, the
parties can agree to hold the bailee free from liability.

The bailee's standard of care is determined based upon the purpose of
the bailment, and whether it is for the benefit of the bailee alone,
the bailor alone, or for the benefit of both parties. If the bailment
is for the benefit of the bailee alone, then the bailee owes a duty of
extraordinary care. If the bailment is for the benefit of both the
bailee and the bailor, then the bailee owes a duty of reasonable or
ordinary care. Reasonable care is care that a person of ordinary
prudence would exercise in the same or similar circumstances. If the
bailment is a gratuitous bailment and is for the benefit of only the
bailor, then the bailee owes only a duty of slight care. "- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh geez. Mighta known the lawyers would put in appearance! And we have
two 'legal' opinions so far.

The only 'law' that got broken here is the immutable one that says;
"The time something will break is when YOU borrow it and/or when YOU
lend it".

I agree totally with other posters. The engine is most likely stuffed
full of too much oil.
Drain it all out including removing the plug and draining any oil out
that way. Gee whiz who would put THAT MUCH oil into (what is it a
Briggs and Stratton/Tecumseh) 3 or 4 HP motor or something! Struth! No
wonder it won't turn and or give compression!

Morally as you have indicated since the lender seems to feel it
'broke' while on loan it IS up to YOU to satisfy that it is working
again. Trouble is that someone not very technically 'ept' ( because I
hate to use the word 'inept') may have an attitude of "Well it worked
OK until lent it to XYZ. Hasn't worked right since"!

And those kind of people (rather like arguing with a dumb blonde!) you
can't reason with. (Oh gee. There's another preposition at the end of
one of my sentences for the group's Word Police to jump on!)