Hypothetically, if you purchased something from a yard sale and discovered it was worth millions of dollars, would you split the money with the original owner?

No. Why?

They made the determination that the item was of no value to them before I ever walked up the driveway. That was their assessment – I didn’t cheat them or lie to them – that was their choice. Maybe they are ignorant. Not my problem.

The only time I would do something like bring back an item of value, is if it was clearly of sentimental value – a class ring, a diploma, an Olympic Gold Medal, or something like that.

If the family looked like they could really use it I would give them something – anonymously.
I would not want the good deed to come back to bite me with legal claims.

They charged you what they thought was a fair and reasonable price.

I’ve bought several items of costume jewelry, that under further inspection were hallmarked as 14k and had precious gems including diamonds.

On “Car Talk,” a caller had found $3200 in the trunk of a car he had purchased some six or seven months earlier. He asked Tom and Ray what he should do. They suggested he ransack the car for more money, but also that they donate the money to charity together with the original owners.

I don’t quite get that. Some kind of misplaced Catholic guilt, maybe?

Caveat Emptor.

If something is worth more than the seller thought it was, that’s too bad. It’s the buyer who owns it and recognized the worth. That’s how it goes. Knowledge is power and in this case, money.

Probably not. If I did it would be anonymously.

Only under the conditions @LuckyGuy laid out. If you buy a car at a yard sale, and it turns out to be a total lemon, do you think you’re getting your money back?

Nope. The seller waived his right to collect further money on the object when you paid his asking price.

They suggested he donate the money to charity together with the original owners.
Double whammy for the original owners…they lose the money and get donated to charity.

@gailcalled – for the lack of a comma, the treasure was lost :-)

Like most hypothetical questions, everyone has some idea about the players involved and the circumstances. But if I outlined some details, I wonder if this would change anyone’s mind…

1. You purchased a Monet at a yard sale for $2 from a man who was very old and suffering from dementia.
2. You purchased a Monet at a yard sale for $2 from a man who was developmentally disabled.
3. You purchased a Monet at a yard sale for $2 from a man who had never had the opportunity for a formal education, and therefore had no idea who Monet was.
4. You purchased a Monet at a yard sale for $2 from a man who had no idea who Monet is, but was selling everything he owned to try to pay his sick wife’s medical bills.

I can’t cook up a scenario in which a person is knowingly selling a valuable item for nothing. All of the scenarios above make it clear to me that the right thing to do would be to split (of some percentage) the amount with the seller. Otherwise, the hypothetical seems to be a very intentional, predatory act against an unknowing victim.

@elbanditoroso; Or simply, location, location, location. Relocate the phrase “together with the original owner” to the front of the sentence.

No way Pedro…I mean, Jose.

@tom_g – I don’t care for Impressionists, so the Monet isn’t all that enticing to me.

But my principle remains the same. It’s not my problem/issue/responsibility to keep track of someone else’s life (except for my family, and people for whom I voluntarily accept that responsibility).

I may be sympathetic to his dementia or his socio-economic condition, but that doesn’t put an obligation on me. I don’t owe him anything. No one should force me to take on an emotional debt or obligation; it’s internally motivated.

I’m sticking with my original answer.

@elbanditoroso: “No one should force me to take on an emotional debt or obligation”

I’m not sure anyone is advocating this. Aren’t we talking about what we would do, not what the law is, right?

@elbanditoroso: “I’‘m sticking with my original answer.”

…

“They made the determination that the item was of no value to them before I ever walked up the driveway. That was their assessment – I didn’t cheat them or lie to them – that was their choice. Maybe they are ignorant. Not my problem.”

Does this original answer apply even if the “determination” is unlikely to be something that can occur without a lack of knowledge, and therefore was made out of pure ignorance?

It sounds like you are sympathetic (you have stated this), but equate ethics with law. Am I wrong? Are you to act morally or compassionately only when forced to?

Several famous contemporary forgers used to claim that they picked up their – oooh, look, an original Charles Booking Marine landscape – from a tag sale.

(See Ken Perenyi)

I don’t feel ethically bound to share my bounty with the item’s former owners, regardless of circumstance.

In fact, I likely forgot the person and the house by the time I got the item home. I wouldn’t even know how to track them down if I wanted to. I’m certainly not asking the person for their life story while shopping at their sale. I give you money, you give me trinket. End of transaction, and more than enough social interaction for my day.

Ha! No.

@tom_g – I act morally and compassionately all the time. But they are my morals and my definition of compassion – NOT yours, not a church’s, not my grandmother’s.

Your yardstick and mine may be different.

Look at Matthew 7, verse 1: Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Hellz no. They sold it in good faith, I bought it in good faith. If I purchased it at more than it was worth, does the seller profit? Yes,and I would lose out. So why would the reverse be any different?

No idea what the law says. I guess the item I bought is legally mine so splitting the money would be entirely up to me. I’ll probably give the former owner, if I happen to like the person, 15–20 percent.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No.

If I know the person AND I was rewarded more money than I would reasonably use, I would give them some.

For example, if I was $20,000 in debt and could get $18,000 for the item, I would not share.

If I was getting millions (that’s way more money than I can even imagine), I would share it with many people.

If I didn’t know the owner but could easily find them, I would probably give them something. If I didn’t know the owner and couldn’t easily find them, I wouldn’t think too much about it.

No, It was their job to find out the worth of what they were putting out for sale and set a price.

I probably wouldn’t share it with the original owner no. There are two reasons:

1 – Once I buy it – it’s mine and it’s none of their business what I do with it and none of my responsibility to take care of them in any way.
2 – Because of what @LuckyGuy said – I wouldn’t want any legal issues to come popping up

I would consider sharing it in some way in two circumstances:

1 – The concept posed by @tom_g regarding someone who was mentally deficient in some way (his #2 hypothetical I believe). Had I made the purchase from someone mentally disabled & there hadn’t been anyone of sound mind there to assist him/her in the selling process then I would consider splitting it between myself and a trust for that person who is mentally disabled.

2 – If I were to find out that the piece was produced by someone who had been a slave or indentured servant or some such person who was made to do things by force but not benefit from their own work in any way – then I may decide to track the history of the item to the current day family of that slave or servant and share the spoils with them in some way or another.

No. That is half the fun of going to yard sales, to find treasures!

I would, because I would feel terrible not to.

My initial thought was “yes”. Maybe not a 50/50 split, but a smaller payment to the person I bought it from. After considering @LuckyGuy‘s scenario, I would do it anonymously. I’d feel guilty if I didn’t.