wolfgang Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 A farmer wanted to sell his goat,he took it to the animal market. After a while came a man and asked the farmer :How many dollars is the price of this goat? The farmer said: 100 Dollars. The man agreed to buy it,he took the 100$ paper out of his poket in order to give it to the farmer but suddenly the goat jumped and picked up the money and chewed it,it was impossible to save the money,the goat swallowed it down. How can you judge between them? The farmer doesn`t took the money, so he can not give his goat to the man,and the man lost his money without taking the goat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 possible solution The goat consumed the money, therefore if the man takes the goat he retains his money and must pay the farmer another 100 dollars. The man cannot leave the goat without losing his 100 dollars as since it never made its way to the farmer it still belongs to the man. In essence, the man loses one hundred dollars due to his lack of reflexes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 I agree, the transaction never took place, so the man loses his hundo, while the farmer keeps his goat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) I would have advised them to get together and try marketting for goat to sell it for 200$. Both can then have 100$ each. Happy solution... Edited January 3, 2011 by Panwar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 I'd go with raising the price of the goat to $200. $100. to repay the traveler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 If the farmer still owns the goat, he is liable for the damages, is he not? He must reimburse. If the transaction occurred, then the buyer must reimburse. However, the transaction was agreed to but not yet completed so they should share the loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 k-man Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Split the loss 50/50. Buyer gives the farmer $50 and gets the goat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 moonthirsty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 A farmer wanted to sell his goat,he took it to the animal market. After a while came a man and asked the farmer :How many dollars is the price of this goat? The farmer said: 100 Dollars. The man agreed to buy it,he took the 100$ paper out of his poket in order to give it to the farmer but suddenly the goat jumped and picked up the money and chewed it,it was impossible to save the money,the goat swallowed it down. How can you judge between them? The farmer doesn`t took the money, so he can not give his goat to the man,and the man lost his money without taking the goat. Are you saying that the money can not be retrieved after the goat has passed it? Money is made of cloth, it should come out whole. If that's not possible, the owner should allow the purchaser to take some goat milk and make $100 worth of delicious goat cheese, sell it, and pay the man again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Are you saying that the money can not be retrieved after the goat has passed it? Money is made of cloth, it should come out whole. If that's not possible, the owner should allow the purchaser to take some goat milk and make $100 worth of delicious goat cheese, sell it, and pay the man again. With an animal such as a goat it will not pass without being digested. They chew multiple times and have sharp rear teeth. Edited January 3, 2011 by Darth Legion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 I think the buyer loses out as it was an "act of goat"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Goats ruminate, which means they periodically regurgitate food to chew it again. If they wait a few minutes the goat will regurgitate the money and they can complete the transaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 The Merchant can sell the goat to the same buyer for $50 and now both the buyer & seller lost $50. The seller lost $50 by selling it $50 less and the buyer is losing $50 by paying $50 more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Assuming that the buyer was going to slaughter the goat for meat and assuming the money was swallowed whole, then the buyer should pay an $100 more (for $200 total that he has now spent). He can slaughter the goat immediately, retrieve the $100 note he lost to the goat and still have only paid $100. The original intended transaction has then taken place! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 bushindo Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) A farmer wanted to sell his goat,he took it to the animal market. After a while came a man and asked the farmer :How many dollars is the price of this goat? The farmer said: 100 Dollars. The man agreed to buy it,he took the 100$ paper out of his poket in order to give it to the farmer but suddenly the goat jumped and picked up the money and chewed it,it was impossible to save the money,the goat swallowed it down. How can you judge between them? The farmer doesn`t took the money, so he can not give his goat to the man,and the man lost his money without taking the goat. Here's a strategy to fully compensate both men 1) Let the goat owner and the buyer bring the goat to a crowded marketplace. 2) Let one of them stand on a platform and advertise to the passerby: "Raffle! Raffle! Get your raffle tickets here. Only 2 dollars per ticket for a chance to win this fabulous goat, which alone is worth 100 dollars. Not only that, we'll throw in an extra 100 dollars, in cash, for the winner of this once-in-a-blue-moon deal. Get your raffles, ladies and gentlemen. Only 2 dollars for a chance to win a goat and 100 dollars in cash! Come one, come all! Your satisfaction is absolutely guaranteed or you'll get your money back." 3) Repeat step 2) until the goat owner and the buyer have sold 100 tickets or more (income of at least 200 dollars). Then conduct a drawing and give the goat to the winner. Explain to the winner that his cash winnings are included in the goat. 4) The goat owner and the buyer then divide the income among themselves. Assuming they sold 100 tickets, the goat owner can get 100 dollars (the cost of the goat), and the buyer can get 100 dollars (the money he lost in the beginning). If the two sold more than 100 tickets, then split extra money equally and call it entrepreneurial profit. 5) If the raffle winner complains that the goat is not worth 200 dollars as advertised, let the goat owner and buyer refund the winner's 2 dollar raffle ticket and take the goat back Edited January 3, 2011 by bushindo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Cut the goat in half. Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) because the money is not given to the farmer, so the goat is still for the farmer so he is responsible for the goat's actions. so he have to pay 100$ back to the man. and he can suggest his goat instead of the money! but if I was the man, I wouldn't accept a money chewer anymore!!! Edited January 4, 2011 by saqar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Laws of the land may dictate a solution. since the man agreed to buy hence an agreement has been made. Now, he owns the goat and is yet to pay to the farmer. So, if his goat chewed his money, farmer is not responsible in any manner. The man still owes that 100 to the farmer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 wolfgang Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 possible solution The goat consumed the money, therefore if the man takes the goat he retains his money and must pay the farmer another 100 dollars. The man cannot leave the goat without losing his 100 dollars as since it never made its way to the farmer it still belongs to the man. In essence, the man loses one hundred dollars due to his lack of reflexes. but still,,,you made no judgement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 wolfgang Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I agree, the transaction never took place, so the man loses his hundo, while the farmer keeps his goat. I think it is unfair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 wolfgang Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I would have advised them to get together and try marketting for goat to sell it for 200$. Both can then have 100$ each. Happy solution... but the goat belongs the farmer,why should he devide the money? this is not fair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 wolfgang Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I'd go with raising the price of the goat to $200. $100. to repay the traveler. Let us say the maximum price for such a goat at that place was 100 Dollars,no more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 wolfgang Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 If the farmer still owns the goat, he is liable for the damages, is he not? He must reimburse. If the transaction occurred, then the buyer must reimburse. However, the transaction was agreed to but not yet completed so they should share the loss. This is not a fair solution,hence the farmer has no money to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 wolfgang Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Split the loss 50/50. Buyer gives the farmer $50 and gets the goat. not fair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 wolfgang Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Are you saying that the money can not be retrieved after the goat has passed it? Money is made of cloth, it should come out whole. If that's not possible, the owner should allow the purchaser to take some goat milk and make $100 worth of delicious goat cheese, sell it, and pay the man again. The money was made of paper and it was completely swallowed by the goat. The farmer needs the money and he can not wait till he got so much milk from the goat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 wolfgang Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Goats ruminate, which means they periodically regurgitate food to chew it again. If they wait a few minutes the goat will regurgitate the money and they can complete the transaction. There was no chance to have the money back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 wolfgang Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Here's a strategy to fully compensate both men 1) Let the goat owner and the buyer bring the goat to a crowded marketplace. 2) Let one of them stand on a platform and advertise to the passerby: "Raffle! Raffle! Get your raffle tickets here. Only 2 dollars per ticket for a chance to win this fabulous goat, which alone is worth 100 dollars. Not only that, we'll throw in an extra 100 dollars, in cash, for the winner of this once-in-a-blue-moon deal. Get your raffles, ladies and gentlemen. Only 2 dollars for a chance to win a goat and 100 dollars in cash! Come one, come all! Your satisfaction is absolutely guaranteed or you'll get your money back." 3) Repeat step 2) until the goat owner and the buyer have sold 100 tickets or more (income of at least 200 dollars). Then conduct a drawing and give the goat to the winner. Explain to the winner that his cash winnings are included in the goat. 4) The goat owner and the buyer then divide the income among themselves. Assuming they sold 100 tickets, the goat owner can get 100 dollars (the cost of the goat), and the buyer can get 100 dollars (the money he lost in the beginning). If the two sold more than 100 tickets, then split extra money equally and call it entrepreneurial profit. 5) If the raffle winner complains that the goat is not worth 200 dollars as advertised, let the goat owner and buyer refund the winner's 2 dollar raffle ticket and take the goat back I like your "American" way of judgement,but I asked you to judge between them as a (JUDGE). Thank you ...you made me laugh alot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
wolfgang
A farmer wanted to sell his goat,he took it to the animal market.
After a while came a man and asked the farmer :How many dollars is the price of this goat?
The farmer said: 100 Dollars.
The man agreed to buy it,he took the 100$ paper out of his poket in order to give it to the farmer but suddenly
the goat jumped and picked up the money and chewed it,it was impossible to save the money,the goat swallowed it down.
How can you judge between them?
The farmer doesn`t took the money, so he can not give his goat to the man,and
the man lost his money without taking the goat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
33 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.