GameBanshee Forums

Members of the SYM Jury.

Nikaos vs. Tamosa

A few years before the out break of the first world war a strange case went before the court in Greece that caused much discussion at the time but is now all but forgotten.

The facts were these:
Nikaos was a businessman that had made a minor fortune selling sardines. He bought an old style wooden yacht and sailed the Mediterranean for several years in his retirement. He had an old childhood friend, Tamosa, that had also done well for himself owning a minor ship repair business. So what would be more natural for Nikaos than to have his ship repaired at his old friend’s shipyard.
Nikaos was a practical man and he kept his ship in good repair. Whenever he docked in the shipyard he had the worn planks and other bits changed for exactly similar new parts. This went on for many years and both men were happy with the arrangement.
The parts that were changed however were not in a bad condition so Tamosa had them stored in a warehouse.

One stormy night Nikaos ship was in harbour and disaster struck. A bolt of lightning hit the ship and it burned and then sank. Although no one was killed the ship was completely gone and Nikaos was devastated.

Sometime later Tamosa went through the old parts and discover to his surprise that there were exactly enough to build a complete ship. The construction did not take long.
When Nikosa heard of this he felt that his old friend had betrayed him and that the ship was his and he tried to claim it – and so the case landed in court.

Nikosa argued that the ship was his since the parts came from the original ship.

Tamosa admitted that the parts came from the original but held that the ship he had recently constructed was not the original since Nikosa’s ship (the original) was the one that had burned. He also pointed out that should anyone have asked Nikosa which ship was his before it burned he would have pointed confidently to the ship in the harbour.

Dear SYM’er, if you have taken the trouble to read all this I hope that you will also cast your honest vote as to whom the leftover ship belongs to or in other words to say which one is the original. So should Tamosa keep the boat or should it be given to Nikosa?

(those of you that know the point to the story please don’t reveal all yet.)

I beleive Tamosa is the one who is right here. Even though those planks and boards came from Nikaos original ship, he had given them up for newer pieces, thus forfeited any claim on them. Tamosa was just being a smart buisness man when he realized that the used boards were still in good enough condition that he could make a new boat out of them.

I agree with Aegis, not unless there was a written agreement implying that any discarded piece still belongs to Nikaos.

The mere fact that Nikaos had his ship serviced and replaced of parts mean that whatever finished ship after the service would be legally his ship and not the discarded parts.

Knowing you Tom, there must be something suspicious with this story

Anyway, I agree with Aegis. Nikaos had given up the old pieces in exchange for new ones. Since the pieces legally belongs to Tamosa, the new ship constructed with these pieces, should also legally belong to Tamosa.

However...this is a legal answer. The answer what is the original ship, is more difficult IMO. I suppose one could argue that every piece that had belonged to the orignal ship are equally "original".

Why don't they all share the boat...


It should be Tamosa's though..........

Tamosa

In return for the old parts Nikaos didn't value over the years, Tamosa should have be made to provide the scraps of old cashed checks he had gradually collected in payment.

Yeah, I know that sounds silly. But I'm a poetic old fahrt.

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

I think the point is way different. I think Tamosa wanted to build the new boat for Nikaos. I think he wanted to do a great thing for his friend and give him back his ship, for real, not just make a replica. Then it would be even more special. And what does Nikaos do. He sues. He assumes that Tamosa wanted to keep the boat for himself. Never even enters his head that it might have been a gift. Obviously Nikaos doesn't even know the man he called friend. There's friendship for you, eh? There's loyalty!! There's the reward of a lifelong brotherhood! Betrayal!! BETRAYAL!!!!!



[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

@Loner, your lithium dose is waiting at the door.

Thanks Fable, I've been looking for that

First, Nikaos really needs a better insurance company. Second, I agree with CE that there is something distincly fishy about this question.

Since fishy, hence suspicious.

• Is an object the sum of its parts? When you change all parts of an object, at which point does it turn into a new object?
• There is no formal handover of the parts from Nikaos to Tamosa. Unless there is a "common practise" stating that old parts change ownership, the parts most probably belong to Nikaos.
• Being a devout sceptic, I think anything reasonably logical will be overturned in a court of law.

Don't you just hate that feeling in your gut that you believe is trying to tell you something, and then it turns out it's just calling out for another sandwich

I think the philosophical issue is the key. Is a boat with the same name and registration number the same boat when all it's parts have been replaced? If not, has the registration agency caught up and charged a second registration fee? If it is, they've probably solved a very difficult philosophical question in a lawful manner, but have they given any proper motivation or logical proof? I'm confused, I give up.

I go for Nikaos, since his odds are good

There is, obviously, something weird about this case, aside from Tom being involved .

Although it's been a while since I graduated from law school, I will take a shot at this. Also, I'm a corporate lawyer, not a litigator, so I have no experience with trials, pre-trial motions/pleadings or discovery of evidence (i.e. I don't do any of the things you see on Law & Order, Ally McBeal, Judging Amy, etc.).

If the story is meant to be a parable, then I agree with loner72's assessment. If the story's a real-life case, then I would say we need more facts on the arrangement between Nikaos and Tamosa. The arrangement could be one of the following two alternatives (the following assumes Greek law is similar to U.S. law):

(1)

If Nikaos and Tamosa exchanged goods & services, i.e. if Nikaos gave Tamosa some spare parts in exchange for Tamosa fixing the ship with new parts, then there was a bargained-for exchange. Under contract law, the two friends would have a valid agreement.

Title to the spare parts passed to Tamosa upon the completion of the exchange, and absent any fraud, the Greek court should properly uphold the contract and declare that Tamosa is the rightful owner of the ship, as Tamosa was free to do with the spare parts as he pleased.

(2)

Alternatively, if Tamosa was rendering a gratuitous service to Nikaos and did not expect anything in return, then there was no bargained-for exchange. In legal parlance, there was a failure of "consideration," and Tamosa's new parts were a gift to Nikaos rather than the fulfillment of a contractual obligation.

If this was the case, then Nikaos could argue that as a matter of property law, he never relinquished his property rights to the spare parts. Nikaos could argue that Tamosa was merely holding the spare parts in bailment for Nikaos.

However, this would be a factual question for the jury, and if the jury concluded that Nikaos in fact abandoned the spare parts, then Tamosa would have a strong property claim to the spare parts (there's a popular phrase "possession is 9/10ths of the law").

If this was a bench trial instead of a jury trial, the Greek judge might very well decide this factual question in Nikaos' favor, giving consideration to Nikaos' unfortunate circumstances (despite his bad form of suing Tamosa).

I have no idea who would have the burden of proof, but if the jury/judge concludes that Nikaos never abandoned the spare parts, Nikaos should win, but might have to pay Tamosa's costs of assembling the spare parts into a ship. If the jury/judge concludes that Nikaos did abandon the spare parts, then Tamosa wins, and he keeps the ship.

Going back to if the story's supposed to be a parable - my guess would be that the judge ruled in favor of Nikaos, but that to teach Nikaos a lesson about friendship, the judge forced Nikaos to disassemble the ship before being able to get his spare parts back.

I am assuming that Nikaos somehow payed for his repairs in a way different than giving up his spare parts (most likely monetary). This negates the biggest possible objection Tamosa could have - that he was given ownership of the spare parts.

While I am leaning to the fact that I would personally allow Tamosa to keep the new boat (hey, smart guys reap some nice rewards), I get the feeling that there is no proof that Nikaos ever relinquished ownership of the old pieces. Therefore I beleive the court ruled in Nikaos' favor.

Before i say anything i have to say that Crassus has WAY WAY WAY to much free time on his hands and doesnt relize that half the ppl here are teens/young adults. sorry had to get it out


I believe that the parts are legaly Tamosa's because what i was looking at was that Tamosa gave Nikaos repairs. In repairs the repairman supplys the materials needed to repair the ship while the person that needs the repairs pays them for it. Now that makes the parts legaly Tamosa because he has supplied Nikaos with new parts while Nikaos disregarded the old parts as scrap in case Tamosa wants to repair the ship with the old parts. That legaly makes the boat Tamosa's, but i would say that True friends would share the boat possibly, maybe Nikaos should pay Tamosa for the boat, or even Tamosa should let him have it for a gift. I think that what really happened was that Tamosa did give him it as a gift even though i dunno

Originally posted by KillerKid:
<STRONG>Before i say anything i have to say that Crassus has WAY WAY WAY to much free time on his hands and doesnt relize that half the ppl here are teens/young adults. sorry had to get it out</STRONG>

KK, Crassus post is most appreciated by the half of us who are not teeagers Take a look in this thread - a majority of the posters is around 30 or more. If you don't like this kind of threads, don't read them.

Shes gots a point KK. I may be a Teenager, but I still am up there with the 30 yearold ancients in discussion!

@KK, nobody forces anyone to read all the posts, here. You're welcome to ignore Crassus' remarks, but they're intelligently considered, phrased, and respectful of others. Why should they stop?

i thought what he said was very intelent acutually i just though i would mention that its kinda a long thing to write for when ppl like me dont even use .s not to mention ,s and 's hehe

@ C Elegans, Aegis and fable - thanks.

@ KillerKid - no worries.