Ian Thompson wrote:New for old is normal for most insurance policies, but that's not the case if the lender is claiming against the borrower for a loss. The law says the borrower's liability (if they are liable at all) is the value of the clocks at the time of loss. If the clocks were, say, 5 years old, you would be entitled to the value of 5 year old clocks.Scott Freeman wrote:I believe that new for old when you deal with insurance is normal, but frankly I think we would have been happy with second hand had we had guarantees that they were working.
With the confused versions of events described in this thread, It seems to me that the chances of anyone successfully claiming against anyone else for the loss of the clocks is low. It seems to me that the lesson everyone should learn from this is to agree responsibilities up front and put it all in writing.
Fair enough. As I say, we would have been happy for replacement 2nd hand clocks. No-one is now looking to make any claims. I think the one thing I would like to see if nothing else, is that the Congress Company and/or the SCCA do Ben Ogunshola the service of thanking him for resolving the problem. And your final line makes perfect sense Ian. If the SCCA ever decide to work with us again on a congress, I think it is fair to say that we would be doing that!