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 wolfgang Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Cut the goat in half. Done. 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 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!!! The farmer will find this judgement,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 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. what if he had no more money to pay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) The goat is an agent of it's owner. The goat "stole" $100 from the buyer before it was bought so the owner owes the buyer $100 on bejalf of the goat. He must "return" $100 to the buyer. Now they are even. The buyer can then offer to buy the goat for the original $100. Gess Edited January 7, 2011 by Gess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) A farmer wanted to sell his goat,he took it to the animal market. After a while came a man and asked the farmer :How many dollars is the price of this goat? The farmer said: 100 Dollars. The man agreed to buy it,he took the 100$ 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. The goat is greedy because of the Farmer and hence the byer takes the goat. Edited January 8, 2011 by sudheeran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 wolfgang Posted January 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Till now I didn`t read any (fair) judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 wolfgang Posted January 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 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. This was a real trial....and the judge sent the goat to jail for one month, the state paid the puyer his money back,and gave a mild fine to the farmer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 curr3nt Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 This was a real trial....and the judge sent the goat to jail for one month, the state paid the puyer his money back,and gave a mild fine to the farmer. Can you provide the reasoning on why this is the fair ruling? It seems like the cost of repayment was spread out to everyone since (I guess that) the state's funds came from taxes. Is it fair to have taken a very small value from a lot of people not even involved to repay the buyer? The throwing the goat in jail seems to be a gimic and I would wonder what that cost the state. I very much doubt the goat was rehabilitated from his time in jail. If I was a taxpayer of this state, I would not have found this ruling to be fair. 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.