M would have the legal claim against B for refund (I'm not saying criminal, just for a refund), EXCEPT there appears to have been no formal evidence (police report, insurance claim) of the original theft.
I agree with the poster who said, when you no longer have the cards, there had better be significant proof of the original theft before giving refund to A. And M would need this to get his refund from B. If there is now proof the items were originally stolen, then he has legal claim for the refund.
I understand sentiments about ethics, but one reason to follow what the law prescribes is when you don't things can get messed up as here. One reason for laws is to have a clear step-by-step path for how a situation like this can be neatly cleared up. The law here says where the stolen items go, who gets refund and has claims against who. A problem is two people here skipped what I (and the law) think are important steps. Further, I think the law in this situation leads to an ethical resolution-- and it was the skipping of steps that led to the current inequity.
Last edited by drcy; 01-13-2018 at 12:38 PM.
|