Advice on getting some stuff back...please! - Page 2

AchtungBaby80 · #16 02-12-2006, 03:49 PM

I doubt any of you all are very concerned about this

, but I have an update. I'm making headway, folks! After trying unsuccessfully to reach my ex-friend by cell phone, I called one of our mutual friends. He finally got back to me and said that he didn't know her parents' address or phone number, but that he wouldn't mind to call her ex-boyfriend for me because he just went up to visit her not long ago so he would know. So...I'll let you know what happens.

HotDamnImAPhiMu · #17 02-12-2006, 03:57 PM

Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous?

She's had the stuff for OVER A YEAR. The time to get your stuff back was a year ago.

Now you're going nuts calling her friends, boyfriends, thinking about calling her parents?

I gotta say - you look like the psycho at this point, not her. And your mutual friends probably agree with me on this.

It sucks that she's got your stuff, but really, the time to handle this was a year ago. Grow up, get over it, start saving for a new dress. And chalk this up for experience.

LeslieAGD · #18 02-12-2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HotDamnImAPhiMu
She's had the stuff for OVER A YEAR. The time to get your stuff back was a year ago.

I was wondering why AchtungBaby didn't get her stuff back months ago, too, but $800 worth of dresses is a lot to just chalk up to a loan-mistake. Time to take this chick to Judge Judy!

HotDamnImAPhiMu · #19 02-12-2006, 04:32 PM

Yes, it is. But they're also:

(a) Not work $800 anymore, as they've been worn at least twice by two differen girls,
(b) At least a year old, and
(c) Making her look psycho to her friends, and possibly setting her up for additional legal problems in the future.

If you ask me, these dresses aren't worth it anymore.

She had the chance to get her stuff back a year ago; she passed on it. At this point it isn't about the dresses anymore. She needs to let it go because it's going to end up costing her more than she's probably willing to sacrifice.

AchtungBaby80 · #20 02-12-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HotDamnImAPhiMu
She had the chance to get her stuff back a year ago; she passed on it.

I've been trying for months, as I said earlier. I suppose I should have called her several times a week in the beginning instead of once every couple of weeks, but that was my mistake. I didn't even know that she had moved back with her parents until I heard it through the grapevine, because we don't talk anymore.

I don't give a damn about the money. I do care about the dresses, though, because a couple of them were vintage and one was a bridesmaid dress. It's more the sentimental value. I won't take her to court or anything because at this point I just have too many other things going on to worry about it, but at the very least I do want her to know that I'm upset with what she did.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.

HotDamnImAPhiMu · #21 02-12-2006, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AchtungBaby80
I've been trying for months, as I said earlier. I suppose I should have called her several times a week in the beginning instead of once every couple of weeks, but that was my mistake.

No, you should've gotten them back within a month of lending her. Waiting until almost a year had gone by, then trying to get them back was a mistake.

Quote:

I don't give a damn about the money. I do care about the dresses, though, because a couple of them were vintage and one was a bridesmaid dress. It's more the sentimental value.

I don't buy this. If you were that concerned about the dresses you would've been contacting her a week after whatever event she borrowed them for.

Quote:

I won't take her to court or anything because at this point I just have too many other things going on to worry about it, but at the very least I do want her to know that I'm upset with what she did.

She knows, because you've been going psycho calling her exboyfriends, mutual friends, and threatening to call her parents.

Get OVER it.

KillarneyRose · #22 02-12-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HotDamnImAPhiMu
No, you should've gotten them back within a month of lending her. Waiting until almost a year had gone by, then trying to get them back was a mistake.

Whoa, Nelly! This situation has really touched a nerve with you. Are you a serial dress stealer or something??

The dresses belong to AchtungBaby and if she wants them back, she's well within her rights.

Period. End of story. Step away, nothing to see here.

HotDamnImAPhiMu · #23 02-12-2006, 06:34 PM

Sure, she has the right to them - but they're going to cost her.

In this case, they've already cost her a couple hours of her time, some phone calls, and who knows what else. Continuing this bizarre obsession (can I reemphasize over a year ago, she lent these dresses out, and is just now starting to get serious about getting them back) with some dresses she lent an ex-friend is going to begin to cost her friends & her reputation.

And my bet? My bet is the dresses were given away when these girls had the falling out a year ago.

Lady Pi Phi · #24 02-12-2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VandalSquirrel
...However be prepared to not see your things again, and that for the amount of $800 you are likely headed to small claims, and lawyers aren't allowed there . It'd probably cost more for a lawyer than for your things...

Slight hijack...

Lawyers aren't allowed in small claims court? I find that really odd. I agree that hiring a lawyer will probably cost you more than you are suing for. But I don't see why a lawyer would not be allowed in small claims court?

/hijack

wrigley · #25 02-12-2006, 07:32 PM

I don't think there is a statue of limitations on asking for the return of item that was intended to be borrowed only.

Vintage dresses increase in value instead of deappreciating.
Ever watch The Antiques Roadshow?

HotDamnImAPhiMu · #26 02-12-2006, 07:35 PM

"Vintage" can also mean "3 months old". Seen the snafu from a month or two ago with one starlet who wore a "vintage" Chanel dress that'd been worn less than a year earlier by another starlet?

wrigley · #27 02-12-2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HotDamnImAPhiMu
"Vintage" can also mean "3 months old". Seen the snafu from a month or two ago with one starlet who wore a "vintage" Chanel dress that'd been worn less than a year earlier by another starlet?

I agree the word vintage can be used in improperly. However I can only go by what AchtungBaby80 chooses to post about her dilemma.

You're referring to the black and white Chanel dress worn recently by Reese Witherspoon at the Golden Globe Awards which was originally worn by Kirsten Dunst in 2003. Yes the faux pas made by House of Chanel makes them look ignorant.

uksparkle · #28 02-12-2006, 08:12 PM

I don't think it matters.....if she wants the dresses back and wants to put the energy into getitng them back then it's not hurting me. Good luck getting them!

(Also, sometimes it's jsut the principle of something.)

HotDamnImAPhiMu · #29 02-12-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wrigley
You're referring to the black and white Chanel dress worn recently by Reese Witherspoon at the Golden Globe Awards which was originally worn by Kirsten Dunst in 2003.

Nicely DONE.

pinkiebell1001 · #30 02-13-2006, 12:02 AM

oh well- that dress was MUCH cuter on Reese anyways!

*crossing fingers you'll get your dresses back!*