• JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Sorry, please define what you meant by repossession then. As I understood, they were saying what I described would happen to the car, and you called it repossession. I was just rolling with the word I thought you were using.

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Someone further up in the thread used the word repossession. Where I am from we typically shorten that term to “repo.” This occurs when you have “bought” a car, but on a finance or payment plan. So you have not paid the full price of the car, instead you are making monthly payments. If you fail to make those monthly payments, the car will be “repo’ed” it will be physically taken away from you. Used to be with a tow truck. Though if they can start it with a key or some electronic means they could do that too. This is not theft. Quite the opposite, the “buyer” is engaging in theft, as they are not paying for the item they agreed to purchase.

      So that’s why my understanding of the definition of repo is not theft. But maybe there is a different definition I am not familiar with.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Oh, yes, I agree with you that with that clarified definition of repossession taking the car back is not exactly theft. But you should at least recompense the hirer for the additional money paid months they were paying for the car, which would presumably be a higher rate than if they were renting the car.