B道歉都答应赔偿一半，A竟然还不同意，不依不饶直到B最后真的全款$2600赔了A一个旧戒指？！ 关键是原贴主女儿及朋友们还全部支持A? 真是个妖孽的世界，看来我是真的老了
B最多赔四分之一： 戒指折旧一半，两人各分担一半的责任。最多了。
其实A自己的责任比B大。
但A,B都是孩子，父母不知情，他们自己处理，自己面对后果，自己吸取教训。
我要是A， 不论心里如何猜疑B，都不会跟B要钱的。
我要是B， 不会自己带戒指，拿个塑料袋儿装好，放自己purse，见到A时候给她。
$2600 不值得破坏友情
为什么她不需要赔偿?
不能承担丢失的损失，就别带出去，一定要带出去也要时时刻刻看好，自己对自己的财产负责
A应该强迫B全款$2600赔付戒指吗？
但B承认戒指在她家中, A要自己去拿, B承诺带回, 之后戒指的丢失完全是B的责任,当然B来买单...至于赔多少另说.
但B找到了戒指, A要自己拿, B承诺会带回,然后弄丢,当然是B买单了.
从下面搬上来。Chat GPT说的。关键在于bailment with slight negligence。帮人保管，但是失职造成丢失。
Great question! If this situation were brought to a U.S. small claims court, the judge would likely look at:
Was there a clear agreement or obligation?
A agreed to let B bring the ring to school — likely informally.
B voluntarily accepted responsibility, making her a sort of “bailee” (someone temporarily holding property for someone else).
Was B negligent?
If B lost the ring because it was loosely worn and fell off, the court would ask:
Was that a reasonable way to carry it?
Did B take basic precautions to protect someone else’s property?
Value of the ring
The court might ask for proof of the ring’s value to assess damages.
In many small claims courts, the judge might rule that:
B accepted responsibility when she offered to bring the ring.
B failed to exercise reasonable care by wearing it on a finger where it could easily fall off.
Therefore, B is liable — but possibly not 100%, especially if A had a chance to retrieve the ring herself.
So the judge could:
Award full compensation to A (especially if the ring was valuable and B was careless), OR
Decide both parties share some fault, and award partial compensation (e.g., 50%).
This is a classic case of “bailment with slight negligence” — B had a duty to protect A’s property and arguably didn’t do so adequately.
Want help turning this into a mock argument for debate or a class activity?
赔2600是不合理了。
东西的方式不合常理
花2000块钱，认清一个损友，也算是值了吧。
B道歉都答应赔偿一半，A竟然还不同意，不依不饶直到B最后真的全款$2600赔了A一个旧戒指？！ 关键是原贴主女儿及朋友们还全部支持A? 真是个妖孽的世界，看来我是真的老了
B最多赔四分之一： 戒指折旧一半，两人各分担一半的责任。最多了。
其实A自己的责任比B大。
但A,B都是孩子，父母不知情，他们自己处理，自己面对后果，自己吸取教训。
我要是A， 不论心里如何猜疑B，都不会跟B要钱的。
我要是B， 不会自己带戒指，拿个塑料袋儿装好，放自己purse，见到A时候给她。
$2600 不值得破坏友情
为什么她不需要赔偿?
不能承担丢失的损失，就别带出去，一定要带出去也要时时刻刻看好，自己对自己的财产负责
A应该强迫B全款$2600赔付戒指吗？
但B承认戒指在她家中, A要自己去拿, B承诺带回, 之后戒指的丢失完全是B的责任,当然B来买单...至于赔多少另说.
但B找到了戒指, A要自己拿, B承诺会带回,然后弄丢,当然是B买单了.
从下面搬上来。Chat GPT说的。关键在于bailment with slight negligence。帮人保管，但是失职造成丢失。
Great question! If this situation were brought to a U.S. small claims court, the judge would likely look at:
Key Legal ConsiderationsWas there a clear agreement or obligation?
A agreed to let B bring the ring to school — likely informally.
B voluntarily accepted responsibility, making her a sort of “bailee” (someone temporarily holding property for someone else).
Was B negligent?
If B lost the ring because it was loosely worn and fell off, the court would ask:
Was that a reasonable way to carry it?
Did B take basic precautions to protect someone else’s property?
Value of the ring
The court might ask for proof of the ring’s value to assess damages.
? Likely VerdictIn many small claims courts, the judge might rule that:
B accepted responsibility when she offered to bring the ring.
B failed to exercise reasonable care by wearing it on a finger where it could easily fall off.
Therefore, B is liable — but possibly not 100%, especially if A had a chance to retrieve the ring herself.
So the judge could:
Award full compensation to A (especially if the ring was valuable and B was careless),
OR
Decide both parties share some fault, and award partial compensation (e.g., 50%).
In Legal Terms:This is a classic case of “bailment with slight negligence” — B had a duty to protect A’s property and arguably didn’t do so adequately.
Want help turning this into a mock argument for debate or a class activity?
赔2600是不合理了。
东西的方式不合常理
花2000块钱，认清一个损友，也算是值了吧。