jlb532

Wow, great links. Thanks!

Miller_arch

Here is another...

https://rennlist.com/members.htm

Wellardmac

That was also one of the best recommendations I received when I started lurking around here.

Wellardmac

You're welcome.

jasper

[QUOTE=jlb532;5438758]...
The DRIVER OF THE TRUCK ADMITTED TO DRIPPING THE CEMENT.
...QUOTE]


CONCRETE

Eharrison

[QUOTE=jasper;5439456]No!!!!!!!

Ready mix....

Concrete is what it is when it is in place and set!!!! If you want to great REALLY technical.

But you are right that it is definitely not cement.
This is one of the Man laws about knowing the difference. #782 adopted in 1978.

Patrick

A windshield is different. Most insurance companies, even in Kalifornia unless things have changed since I was there, require a police report for a claim involving any significant damage. It is a paperwork issue, sometimes able to be obtained without the police even being there, and is not the same as calling the police on someone. No one would laugh at you for asking for a police report for damage caused by construction.

tooloud10

I have to disagree with you on that point. An old man struck the front of my 996 at a gas station about a year ago, causing a 3/4" scratch on the front bumper. I got an estimate to fix it from the local Porsche dealer, turned it into his insurance company, and pocketed the $600 check without fixing the damage. I don't think it's remotely unethical to use the money I receive from someone damaging my property to do with what I like.

I didn't feel bad about wasting the dealer's time as up to that point, I had gotten all of my work done there--including a new engine less than six months prior.

Wellardmac

We all have different ways of operating. I'm a straight-up kinda guy. I say what I do and do what I say. To do otherwise is against my code of ethics.

Kims996Cab

No quibbling with your code of ethics .... just with your logic.

I believe that, in accepting money for damages, there is absolutely no implication that one is going to spend that money on repairing said damages.

In my code of ethics, if my Porsche is harmed by someone else's negligence, then I am due compensation for the reduced value that results. What I do with that compensation .... spend it to fix my car, or save it and accept the state of reduced value .... is legally and ethically my option. In accepting an insurance settlement, one only agrees that such settlement is sufficient compensation. One does not commit to any specific course of action with that money.

Wellardmac

I cannot argue with your comments. It's just a matter of personal style/methodology. I expressed my code of conduct, there's no logic involved.

To me it's not about money or retribution, it's about putting right damage. If I didn't care about the damage, then I wouldn't go through the hassle of collecting the money.

If something is easily fixed for next to no money, then why should I care about the money?

In this particular case it appears that the damage is easily fixed with a $6 bottle of scratch remover and a little wax - personally I'd make sure that the negligent driver got torn a new one, then I'd just get out my detailing kit and fix it myself. Money is not a necessary component to the transaction.

Honestly, for the hassle and grief involved the money is worth nothing to me. My time is worth way more than I'd recoup. It's all about righting a wrong/fixing damage - To me, that's all that matters.

Kims996Cab

With no intent to insult you personally, that sounds simplistic to me .... as if all such transactions occur under the same black and white set of circumstances.

For example: years ago when I was in southeast Asia for the unpleasantness there, I bought my wife a beautiful ring. Upon return to the states, we had it appraised and insured accordingly.

Fast forward several years: I've left the service and am struggling to feed my family while waiting for an airline to hire me. The ring disappears one day, and is covered by my insurance policy for replacement value. A big check comes in the mail, and where does it go? Certainly not to buy a ring, but to buy groceries, and pay off the obstetrician's bill.

Was it "worth the hassle" of collecting the money? You better believe it. Did we use the money to "put right" the loss? Not on your life. It was our money, and we used it for the things that were a priority in our life at that moment. No "retribution" .... just spending money rightfully ours on the things important to us. I would have made exactly the same decision had the money come from someone dropping ready mix on the old beater Volvo we drove at the time, assuming it remained driveable.

If your life has always been so uncomplicated as not to be faced with such decisions, I am happy for you. Not many are so fortunate.

Wellardmac

Your example was a totally irrelevant to the discussion.

My comments were directed solely towards the circumstances where a 3rd party inflicts damage upon your property.

Not all cases are the same, but the principle is. Please do not read more into my words than is intended and do not twist them to suit your own mindset.

Tippy

Wait, where is this going, hehe

jasper

[QUOTE=Eharrison;5439671]From where I sit it's fresh concrete before it's set and hardened concrete after. Ready-mix is a special albeit common form of fresh concrete.

Look at it this way, say you were living next door to the OP, and you were mixing up some concrete in your mixer at home so you could build a garage. Then lets say you had one too many beers and ended up splashing your neighbours hood while you were tipping your mix into your forms.

The next day you wouldn't be apologizing for getting ready-mix on his car would you? Ready Mix is so-called because it comes delivered to the work site ready to place.

Yes, I agree that it was ready-mixed concrete on his car, but it was concrete first, and Ready Mix second.

edit: and yes - any self respecting male should know the difference between cement and concrete.