Can using something Stolen or unfairly acquired be a sin?

[Angel7]

Stealing is wrong obviously. but what about using something that was stolen (but you did not steal it)

I ask because for some time we have had a new T.V. that I believe was unfairly acquired.
We had bought a new one, but had some defect or problem, so a few guys came from the store and checked it. Now, my Dad was able to fix it (after they left he just opened up the T.V. again and started working on it and i think was able to fix the whole thing up).

Now here is where the issue arises, when another group of guys (I believe) were to come and see if we really did need a new T.V. My dad opened up the T.V. and made it look like the time it was “broken”. So in a sense he unfixed the problem, so that it was obvious, in order for us to get a brand new T.V.

My mom had said that even if my dad hadn’t made the T.V. worse we would have been entitled to a new one because they would have seen the internal problem atleast, but I feel like we unfairly got a new one, its not exactly stealing, but it feels like it.

I know this seems silly, but would anyone else consider this close to stealing?

Thank You

 

[ahs]

Very interesting. I’m going to give my opinion only, as this seems like something a Priest would need to make the final assessment on.

It was not your dad’s responsibility to fix the broken TV. Initially the TV was indeed broken and eligible for replacement. The original guys from the store should have addressed it then.

Your dad’s ability to fix the problem after guys left, however, should have represented at that time the loss of eligibility to have a new replacement. Yet, it was not his responsibility to do that, the store should have. When the new guys came, seeing the again broken TV, they SHOULD have been able to repair it (given the fact that your dad was able to) yet they decided not to. Instead, they replaced it with a new one.

In the end, had your dad kept BOTH TV’s, the new replacement and the “broken” one that he fixed, that would be stealing. But since he didn’t keep it (I’m presuming here, please correct me if I’m wrong) he got an even exchange according to the policy of the store.

Anyway, it would be best to ask a Priest about it, since only they can “loose” or “retain”.

 

[runningdude]

If the TV was dead on arrival, and the stores policy is to replace it with a new one, then it really isn’t a sin.

He may have technically voided the warranty by opening the TV, but since it was so easily fixed, they will probably still be able to repair it and sell it at a discount, which they would have done anyways. So there was no harm done and certainly no mortal sin involved.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Look up DOS CPM

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Stealing is wrong obviously. but what about using something that was stolen (but you did not steal it)

I ask because for some time we have had a new T.V. that I believe was unfairly acquired.
We had bought a new one, but had some defect or problem, so a few guys came from the store and checked it. Now, my Dad was able to fix it (after they left he just opened up the T.V. again and started working on it and i think was able to fix the whole thing up).

Now here is where the issue arises, when another group of guys (I believe) were to come and see if we really did need a new T.V. My dad opened up the T.V. and made it look like the time it was “broken”. So in a sense he unfixed the problem, so that it was obvious, in order for us to get a brand new T.V.

My mom had said that even if my dad hadn’t made the T.V. worse we would have been entitled to a new one because they would have seen the internal problem atleast, but I feel like we unfairly got a new one, its not exactly stealing, but it feels like it.

I know this seems silly, but would anyone else consider this close to stealing?

Thank You

No, because Dad, not a TV Defect made it inoperable. Also, if there was Reason to Believe the TV was stolen, he should try to find the Owner, but never trade it for a New TV. That would be serious Sin of “Conversion”, a Criminal Crime.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Stealing is wrong obviously. but what about using something that was stolen (but you did not steal it)

I ask because for some time we have had a new T.V. that I believe was unfairly acquired.
We had bought a new one, but had some defect or problem, so a few guys came from the store and checked it. Now, my Dad was able to fix it (after they left he just opened up the T.V. again and started working on it and i think was able to fix the whole thing up).

Now here is where the issue arises, when another group of guys (I believe) were to come and see if we really did need a new T.V. My dad opened up the T.V. and made it look like the time it was “broken”. So in a sense he unfixed the problem, so that it was obvious, in order for us to get a brand new T.V.

My mom had said that even if my dad hadn’t made the T.V. worse we would have been entitled to a new one because they would have seen the internal problem atleast, but I feel like we unfairly got a new one, its not exactly stealing, but it feels like it.

I know this seems silly, but would anyone else consider this close to stealing?

Thank You

I would have told my dad to give them back the defective yet fixable TV and to encourage him to get a new one. There are many things I would add to explain why I see the actions your father took were wrong in my opinion yet, this is your dad we are talking about so I won’t.

 

[Jim_Roberts]

Stealing is wrong obviously. but what about using something that was stolen (but you did not steal it)

I ask because for some time we have had a new T.V. that I believe was unfairly acquired.
We had bought a new one, but had some defect or problem, so a few guys came from the store and checked it. Now, my Dad was able to fix it (after they left he just opened up the T.V. again and started working on it and i think was able to fix the whole thing up).

Now here is where the issue arises, when another group of guys (I believe) were to come and see if we really did need a new T.V. My dad opened up the T.V. and made it look like the time it was “broken”. So in a sense he unfixed the problem, so that it was obvious, in order for us to get a brand new T.V.

My mom had said that even if my dad hadn’t made the T.V. worse we would have been entitled to a new one because they would have seen the internal problem atleast, but I feel like we unfairly got a new one, its not exactly stealing, but it feels like it

---

Yes, I believe the conceot that your father utilized was a lie and restution should be repaid, after all, he had lied several times and should return the TV

I know this seems silly, but would anyone else consider this close to stealing?

Thank You

 

[Angel7]

to add more info. the first time the guys came they made it worse (because while trying to fix the TV, they forgot to place something correctly) and one half of the screen was black, I think my dad noticed this and thats what he fixed, thus fixing that and the original problem. The guys that came said that the TV wouldnt last must longer or something like that (thats what my mom told me).
The 2nd visit is where my dad restored the TV to the point where the 1st visit left it (with half black screen).

Their was damage to the TV (apparently some small piece of something was broken or missing) and i think that would have been enough to allow for a replacement (showing them the damage) but my dad made the TV look worse probably to gaurantee a replacement.

Im fairly positive that I cannot convince my parents to tell the truth to the guys at Sear’s.

but now, what I would like to know is, would it be wrong for me to use this television (if it were unfairly acquired)

May The Lord Our God Bless You All!

 

[ahs]

As I mentioned before, you should really get a Priest’s thoughts on this.

But the way I am seeing it, the repair guys botched the repair, made it worse even. Your dad was able to fix it, but that was really the repairmen’s responsibility, one that they could not achieve. The fact that your dad was able to fix himself should have earned him a replacement anyway, IMHO.

When the new guys came and your dad re-broke it, he was only restoring the TV to it’s original broke condition. And you really don’t know what else was wrong with this unit that could have gone wrong later. In my opinion, he was entitled to a replacement regardless of whether he fixed, and later unfixed it.

That said, you are not responsible for your parents’ actions. But, if the TV were indeed unfairly acquired, I do think it would be a sin to utilize it for your enjoyment.

But I really don’t think it was unfairly acquired…but I also recommend getting the advice of a Priest.

Sorry I could not give you a straight answer.

I will tell you this though, at the risk of being hated on. If my TV stopped working properly, and the repair guy could not fix it and said he’d come back to look again, and then I fixed it myself…I’d expect a replacement for the defective unit that I had to fix and let them take the now-fixed defective unit and do what the choose with it.

 

[ahs]

No, because Dad, not a TV Defect made it inoperable. Also, if there was Reason to Believe the TV was stolen, he should try to find the Owner, but never trade it for a New TV. That would be serious Sin of “Conversion”, a Criminal Crime.

I don’t the OP suggested that dad made it inoperable…he simply returned it to the state it was in when it had the initial defect.

There is also no mention of it being stolen or having been believed to be stolen.

@ Angel7, was this unit under warranty? Is that why the Sears guys came out to look/repair?

 

[AntalKalnoky]

I don’t the OP suggested that dad made it inoperable…he simply returned it to the state it was in when it had the initial defect.

There is also no mention of it being stolen or having been believed to be stolen.

@ Angel7, was this unit under warranty? Is that why the Sears guys came out to look/repair?

But Dad Fixed it; it didn’t Need replacemnt. No warranty replacement justified, if fully operational as originally.
Your original posting, Sweet, was ‘We have had a new TV for Some Time, that I believe was unfairly acquired’
A new TV Months after the problem was fixed does not seem honest under warranty. Unless there was another warranty problem of the Original TV while under Warranty. JMO. God Bless.

 

[michelleds]

to add more info. the first time the guys came they made it worse (because while trying to fix the TV, they forgot to place something correctly) and one half of the screen was black, I **think **my dad noticed this and thats what he fixed, thus fixing that and the original problem. The guys that came said that the TV wouldnt last must longer or something like that (thats what my mom told me).
The 2nd visit is where my dad restored the TV to the point where the 1st visit left it (with half black screen).

Their was damage to the TV (apparently some small piece of something was broken or missing) and i think that would have been enough to allow for a replacement (showing them the damage) but my dad made the TV look worse probably to gaurantee a replacement.

Im fairly positive that I cannot convince my parents to tell the truth to the guys at Sear’s.

but now, what I would like to know is, would it be wrong for me to use this television (if it were unfairly acquired)

May The Lord Our God Bless You All!

My two cents is that (1) you should honor your father and mother; (2) it doesn’t appear that you were actually there but that you are basing your questions, at least in part, on what you were told rather than actually witnessed; and (3) possibly the second set of men indicated that the TV wasn’t going to last long, which might mean that they could see what your dad had tried and didn’t think it would hold.

Of course, consult your priest, but I don’t think there’s a moral obligation not to use the television, especially under such nebulous “facts”.

Now, if someone sells you a new big screen tv for $20, you would be both morally and criminally liable for using and possessing an item knowing it to have been stolen. the “knowing” comes from the circumstances (everyone knows that televisions cost more than $20).

 

[Angel7]

I don’t the OP suggested that dad made it inoperable…he simply returned it to the state it was in when it had the initial defect.

There is also no mention of it being stolen or having been believed to be stolen.

@ Angel7, was this unit under warranty? Is that why the Sears guys came out to look/repair?

yes it was still under warranty

 

[ahs]

yes it was still under warranty

Yeah, my opinion (and I’m no Priest so keep that in mind) : the TV was under warranty and did not function properly. It was eligible for replacement. The fact that your dad had to fix it does not void the warranty because the warranty covers the defect and your dad did not remove the fact that it was a defective piece of equipment. He was entitled to a defect-free TV and got one, under warranty.

Your dad’s ability to fix the problem that the Sears guys could not is a testament to his gift of fixing things. But it does not factor into the equation because Sears does not sell TV’s to people with the understanding that we may have to fix our own TV’s from time to time. They offer defect-free equipment and they honored their warranty as they should have. Enjoy the new TV.

 

[runningdude]

Yeah, my opinion (and I’m no Priest so keep that in mind) : the TV was under warranty and did not function properly. It was eligible for replacement. The fact that your dad had to fix it does not void the warranty because the warranty covers the defect and your dad did not remove the fact that it was a defective piece of equipment. He was entitled to a defect-free TV and got one, under warranty.

Your dad’s ability to fix the problem that the Sears guys could not is a testament to his gift of fixing things. But it does not factor into the equation because Sears does not sell TV’s to people with the understanding that we may have to fix our own TV’s from time to time. They offer defect-free equipment and they honored their warranty as they should have. Enjoy the new TV.

 

[MtnDwellar]

but now, what I would like to know is, would it be wrong for me to use this television (if it were unfairly acquired)

The way that I understand your question is not whether or not the T.V. was properly acquired. The question is, IF the T.V. was unfairly acquired, is it wrong to use it? The answer to that question is, yes, it is wrong to use it. We cannot benefit from others’ sins.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Yeah, my opinion (and I’m no Priest so keep that in mind) : the TV was under warranty and did not function properly. It was eligible for replacement. The fact that your dad had to fix it does not void the warranty because the warranty covers the defect and your dad did not remove the fact that it was a defective piece of equipment. He was entitled to a defect-free TV and got one, under warranty.

Your dad’s ability to fix the problem that the Sears guys could not is a testament to his gift of fixing things. But it does not factor into the equation because Sears does not sell TV’s to people with the understanding that we may have to fix our own TV’s from time to time. They offer defect-free equipment and they honored their warranty as they should have. Enjoy the new TV.

Her Dad did the warranty repair, knowing more than some new ‘repairmen’… Replacement is the Last option, if not fully repairable.

 

[runningdude]

Her Dad did the warranty repair, knowing more than some new ‘repairmen’… Replacement is the Last option, if not fully repairable.

My family has done quite a bit of business with Sears over the years. They have an extremely consumer friendly warranty - “Satisfaction Guaranteed, or Your Money Back”. (It’s posted right underneath the sign that still says “Sears, Roebuck, and Co” after nearly a century!).

If the TV already had one defect right out of the box, then it might have more. Her dad was already dissatisfied with the product, and likely Sears would rather replace the whole thing rather than subject its customers to possible multiple repairs on the same defective unit.

Its just the way Sears does things!