GboyegaD:
Woman B should insist that Woman A provides documents for the loan wherein she gave the sewing machine as a collateral. If she can't then, it can be conclued there was never a loan let alone the need for a collateral.

like you said there were no proof of any agreement, let B take her receipt elsewhere to look for her machine
.
.

Psoul:


It may not just be as easy as that.
The essential thing here is that there was a transaction between A and B.
I also believe that the transaction was done unofficially.
So the issue of who is in possession of the product's receipt may not be the determinant of how the case will go.
Woman A can still insist that when she bought the machine, B told her that she has lost the receipt not knowing that she purposely kept it to make trouble in the future.
So long as the issue of B accusing A of stealing the machine, B has more edge against B.

If B cannot provide the collateral agreement between her and A, she should not also bring up the issue of her possessing the receipt as an evidence cos it will be knocked out on the basis of unofficial transaction of gentleman's agreement.
If the machine was as a collateral, why didn't B came for her collateral and redeeming the agreement?
If actually finance was her problem, how many time did she approach A for extension of the agreement?
What was the duration of the said agreement?
An agreement that was supposed to last for 1yr and the borrower kept quiet for 9yrs means gross default of an agreement which gives the lender right to possess the collateral.
If actually that B wants to repossess the collateral, she will need to discuss with A and agree with her on her own terms or forfeit the collateral.

If I am A, I will even go with the option that she used the machine as a collateral cos that will give me more edge against B.

You are definitely right, except the case is being judge, rightfully

But I think he who holds and claims the receipt wins the case

darling2222:

You are definitely right, except the case is being judge, rightfully

But I think he who holds and claims the receipt wins the case

Yes, whoever has the receipt is the owner of the property.
In this case, the woman is not accusing the other of stealing the property.
So, there is a willing submission of property from the owner to the current possessor.
The case will be, on what condition was this property submitted to the possessor.
It's either by selling or as a collateral.
So the two persons need to convince the Judge that the property was given out either for outright sell or as a collateral.

If as sells, why didn't the current possessor collect the original receipt from the original owner. What is the evidence that she paid for the item?
If as a collateral, why did the original owner had to wait for 9 solid years before coming to redeem the property?
So, both of them need strong evidence to convince the Judge.

Psoul:


Yes, whoever has the receipt is the owner of the property.
In this case, the woman is not accusing the other of stealing the property.
So, there is a willing submission of property from the owner to the current possessor.
The case will be, on what condition was this property submitted to the possessor.
It's either by selling or as a collateral.
So the two persons need to convince the Judge that the property was given out either for outright sell or as a collateral.

If as sells, why didn't the current possessor collect the original receipt from the original owner. What is the evidence that she paid for the item?
If as a collateral, why did the original owner had to wait for 9 solid years before coming to redeem the property?
So, both of them need strong evidence to convince the Judge.

Wow you are on a big point

what does the receipt (that victim B possesses) say?!

Oh

Wait first. They’re going to police and court over a sewing machine, a 9-year-old sewing machine?

darling2222:
Many stories like this do happen, and one very important thing is, As I read, Vitim A is the rightful owner,but sure she will have to lose her property, because she can't provide the recept, which Vitim B claims to have
So ,the initial mistake she made was she didn't request for the recept when she bought it from Vitim B

The very important thing here now is the recept,so we shouldn't make such expensive mistake next time

If B takes it to court, she’ll still loose.
She accepted that there was a change of cash from A to B.
Court will simply tell A to return the machine and B to pay back the money, and surely with interest. If you calculate interest for 9 years, you know how many machines e go buy today?.

GreatAdvice:
This is a very simple case and anyone with half a brain should know that Woman B gave it to Woman A as collateral. It doesn't matter if its 9yrs ago or 9 days ago; Woman A needs to pay the money needed to buy a brand new machine in 2022, plus an annualised interest of 30% and severance pay for all the pain and suffering she has inflicted on Woman B. This is a very sad case, you should never sell someone's property that was handed over to you as collateral unless they default on their debt agreement.

Where you there that you’ve already concluded that’s a collateral?
Don’t you know some people can be that troublesome.
Ok let’s agree it was a collateral, woman B should pay interest on 9 years for money that was given to her then. Abi is she expecting to come and pay exact amount she collected 9 years ago?

[s]

helinues:
Receipt or no receipt, woman A should present her witnesses during the collateral

Woman B knows what she is doing, woman A can't come from nowhere after 9 years and be claiming the sewing machine . She probably use the sewing machine for collateral

Now that the Woman A has sold the sewing machine, that complicate the issue more

[/s]

darling2222:

Wow you are on a big point

Thanks @darling

Ehinjuola:
Hello NLanders,
I got caught up with something on my neck in my neighboood recently.

There's this woman (A) who bought a sewing machine from one woman (B) 9 years ago, suddenly woman B just came from nowhere to come and claim the sewing machine that she sold years back that she only use the machine as a collateral from woman A that she didn't sell it for her.

Now the issue is Woman A has sold the sewing Machine and also insisted that if truly woman's (B) use it as collateral for how many years now she would wish if Woman B paid her back with the interest on the money which the money is way much more than money for 100 sewing machines.

Now questions is, how will I go abt it cause I happened to be one of the landlords in my area( I guess I am the youngest) and we are called to come and judge over the matter.
1. Woman's A doesn't posses the receipt of the sewing machine and as already sold the sewing machine
2. Woman's B want the machine at any cost claiming she has the receipt with her and she will use it against woman's A in court ( If the judgement didn't suite her taste in landlord meeting)


Note: They've gone to police station around early February which they've told woman's A abt the important of receipt and also let it known to woman's B that collateral shouldn't be more than a year and after that the person you borrow something from might as well claim the ownership what you use as collateral (Don't know maybe there's any law backing it though)

Abeg let it gain more audience by pushing it to front page thanks.

Woman B has no case even though she has a receipt. In court she has the following huddles to cross if Woman A has a good lawyer:

1. Woman B has to prove the receipt is exactly for the machine that was sold and not another one. That means the receipt need to have serial number and model name on it that matches exactly with the machine that was sold. Unfortunately the machine that was sold is not available for cross checking and it is not a must for Woman A to provide the machine because in law, he who asserts must prove.

2. Woman B will have to prove she gave a machine to Woman A in the first place and it is not a gift. If there is no evidence to show Woman B gave any machine to Woman A, Woman A can simply keep shut and deny getting any machine from Woman B or claim she was gifted the machine by Woman B.

3. If Woman A claims she was gifted the machine by Woman B, Woman B will have to prove it is not a gift even if she has the receipt. There is what is called estoppel in law. If you gave someone a gift and then later want to say you want to reclaim it because you have the receipt, estoppel in law prevents you from doing that. Leaving an item with a person for 9 years without asking after it at all makes it easy for the person to claim it as a gift. Do you expect her to store in for FREE for all that period and also guard it from theft?

In summary, the receipt alone is not sufficient for Woman B to make her case. If there was indeed a loan and evidence of collateral, Woman B will still lose because of the long time. Even collateral have reasonable period before they can be disposed because the value depreciates. A wothless collateral is no more collateral but junk.

They both should be honest they are not fighting because of the said machine but something very deep they both can’t reveal.
Fear women.

Ehinjuola:
Hello NLanders,
I got caught up with something on my neck in my neighboood recently.

There's this woman (A) who bought a sewing machine from one woman (B) 9 years ago, suddenly woman B just came from nowhere to come and claim the sewing machine that she sold years back that she only use the machine as a collateral from woman A that she didn't sell it for her.

Now the issue is Woman A has sold the sewing Machine and also insisted that if truly woman's (B) use it as collateral for how many years now she would wish if Woman B paid her back with the interest on the money which the money is way much more than money for 100 sewing machines.

Now questions is, how will I go abt it cause I happened to be one of the landlords in my area( I guess I am the youngest) and we are called to come and judge over the matter.
1. Woman's A doesn't posses the receipt of the sewing machine and as already sold the sewing machine
2. Woman's B want the machine at any cost claiming she has the receipt with her and she will use it against woman's A in court ( If the judgement didn't suite her taste in landlord meeting)


Note: They've gone to police station around early February which they've told woman's A abt the important of receipt and also let it known to woman's B that collateral shouldn't be more than a year and after that the person you borrow something from might as well claim the ownership what you use as collateral (Don't know maybe there's any law backing it though)

Abeg let it gain more audience by pushing it to front page thanks.

Psoul:


Thanks @darling

You are welcome

Ehinjuola:
Hello NLanders,
I got caught up with something on my neck in my neighboood recently.

There's this woman (A) who bought a sewing machine from one woman (B) 9 years ago, suddenly woman B just came from nowhere to come and claim the sewing machine that she sold years back that she only use the machine as a collateral from woman A that she didn't sell it for her.

Now the issue is Woman A has sold the sewing Machine and also insisted that if truly woman's (B) use it as collateral for how many years now she would wish if Woman B paid her back with the interest on the money which the money is way much more than money for 100 sewing machines.

Now questions is, how will I go abt it cause I happened to be one of the landlords in my area( I guess I am the youngest) and we are called to come and judge over the matter.
1. Woman's A doesn't posses the receipt of the sewing machine and as already sold the sewing machine
2. Woman's B want the machine at any cost claiming she has the receipt with her and she will use it against woman's A in court ( If the judgement didn't suite her taste in landlord meeting)


Note: They've gone to police station around early February which they've told woman's A abt the important of receipt and also let it known to woman's B that collateral shouldn't be more than a year and after that the person you borrow something from might as well claim the ownership what you use as collateral (Don't know maybe there's any law backing it though)

Abeg let it gain more audience by pushing it to front page thanks.

THE CASE WAS LATER SUMMONED TO COURT and will take place ON THE 10TH OF MAY 2022 WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE FIRST TRIAL.

and 2 of the landlords and I is appointed to represent in court on that day.

will updates you guys on the outcome.

UPDATES!!!


Morning N'landers...

I couldn't update you earlier on the case, Sorry for that.

When we got to the court on that faithful day, the plaintiff
refused to show up till around pass 10:00am in which the sitting was stipulated by 9:00am this triggered the judge which order her to pay fine due to how she disrespected court law n wasted their time.
On the other hand the, defendant lawyer requested some of 10K as a defamation and also as a damages from the plaintiff but the judges tempered justice as he reduced it to 2K.

I Was just laughing where I am, like wtf is going on here So I wasted my precious time for this.

What funny most is that as I typed this the plaintiff has never show to pay for the fine. [b]

Ehinjuola:
Hello NLanders,
I got caught up with something on my neck in my neighboood recently.

There's this woman (A) who bought a sewing machine from one woman (B) 9 years ago, suddenly woman B just came from nowhere to come and claim the sewing machine that she sold years back that she only use the machine as a collateral from woman A that she didn't sell it for her.

Now the issue is Woman A has sold the sewing Machine and also insisted that if truly woman's (B) use it as collateral for how many years now she would wish if Woman B paid her back with the interest on the money which the money is way much more than money for 100 sewing machines.

Now questions is, how will I go abt it cause I happened to be one of the landlords in my area( I guess I am the youngest) and we are called to come and judge over the matter.
1. Woman's A doesn't posses the receipt of the sewing machine and as already sold the sewing machine
2. Woman's B want the machine at any cost claiming she has the receipt with her and she will use it against woman's A in court ( If the judgement didn't suite her taste in landlord meeting)


Note: They've gone to police station around early February which they've told woman's A abt the important of receipt and also let it known to woman's B that collateral shouldn't be more than a year and after that the person you borrow something from might as well claim the ownership what you use as collateral (Don't know maybe there's any law backing it though)

Abeg let it gain more audience by pushing it to front page thanks.

THE CASE WAS LATER SUMMONED TO COURT and will take place ON THE 10TH OF MAY 2022 WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE FIRST TRIAL.

and 2 of the landlords and I is appointed to represent in court on that day.

will updates you guys on the outcome.

UPDATES!!!


Morning N'landers...

I couldn't update you earlier on the case, Sorry for that.

When we got to the court on that faithful day, the plaintiff
refused to show up till around pass 10:00am in which the sitting was stipulated by 9:00am this triggered the judge which order her to pay fine due to how she disrespected court law n wasted their time.
On the other hand the, defendant lawyer requested some of 10K as a defamation and also as a damages from the plaintiff but the judges tempered justice as he reduced it to 2K.

I Was just laughing where I am, like wtf is going on here So I wasted my precious time for this.

What funny most is that as I typed this the plaintiff has never show to pay for the fine. [/b]

Ehinjuola:
Hello NLanders,
I got caught up with something on my neck in my neighboood recently.

There's this woman (A) who bought a sewing machine from one woman (B) 9 years ago, suddenly woman B just came from nowhere to come and claim the sewing machine that she sold years back that she only use the machine as a collateral from woman A that she didn't sell it for her.

Now the issue is Woman A has sold the sewing Machine and also insisted that if truly woman's (B) use it as collateral for how many years now she would wish if Woman B paid her back with the interest on the money which the money is way much more than money for 100 sewing machines.

Now questions is, how will I go abt it cause I happened to be one of the landlords in my area( I guess I am the youngest) and we are called to come and judge over the matter.
1. Woman's A doesn't posses the receipt of the sewing machine and as already sold the sewing machine
2. Woman's B want the machine at any cost claiming she has the receipt with her and she will use it against woman's A in court ( If the judgement didn't suite her taste in landlord meeting)


Note: They've gone to police station around early February which they've told woman's A abt the important of receipt and also let it known to woman's B that collateral shouldn't be more than a year and after that the person you borrow something from might as well claim the ownership what you use as collateral (Don't know maybe there's any law backing it though)

Abeg let it gain more audience by pushing it to front page thanks.

THE CASE WAS LATER SUMMONED TO COURT and will take place ON THE 10TH OF MAY 2022 WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE FIRST TRIAL.

and 2 of the landlords and I is appointed to represent in court on that day.

will updates you guys on the outcome.

UPDATES!!!


Morning N'landers...

I couldn't update you earlier on the case, Sorry for that.

When we got to the court on that faithful day, the plaintiff
refused to show up till around pass 10:00am in which the sitting was stipulated by 9:00am this triggered the judge which order her to pay fine due to how she disrespected court law n wasted their time.
On the other hand the, defendant lawyer requested some of 10K as a defamation and also as a damages from the plaintiff but the judges tempered justice as he reduced it to 2K.

I Was just laughing where I am, like wtf is going on here So I wasted my precious time for this.

What funny most is that as I typed this the plaintiff has never show to pay for the fine.

Devilagentcap:
Which Kain Wahala be this for Friday afternoon. See ehn, some people get problem sha. Issue of 9yrs naim you come dey somersault ontop. Pikin of 9rs old don dey jss1.

Well woman 2 get issue, you life no move forward to come dey reclaim smtin you sold in 2013.

lol. if the buyer had died, will she go to her grave to go claiming one machine. Besides, she no even think of market value of then and now. Some people are born to cause fracas.

Ehinjuola:
Hello NLanders,
I got caught up with something on my neck in my neighboood recently.

There's this woman (A) who bought a sewing machine from one woman (B) 9 years ago, suddenly woman B just came from nowhere to come and claim the sewing machine that she sold years back that she only use the machine as a collateral from woman A that she didn't sell it for her.

Now the issue is Woman A has sold the sewing Machine and also insisted that if truly woman's (B) use it as collateral for how many years now she would wish if Woman B paid her back with the interest on the money which the money is way much more than money for 100 sewing machines.

Now questions is, how will I go abt it cause I happened to be one of the landlords in my area( I guess I am the youngest) and we are called to come and judge over the matter.
1. Woman's A doesn't posses the receipt of the sewing machine and as already sold the sewing machine
2. Woman's B want the machine at any cost claiming she has the receipt with her and she will use it against woman's A in court ( If the judgement didn't suite her taste in landlord meeting)


Note: They've gone to police station around early February which they've told woman's A abt the important of receipt and also let it known to woman's B that collateral shouldn't be more than a year and after that the person you borrow something from might as well claim the ownership what you use as collateral (Don't know maybe there's any law backing it though)

Abeg let it gain more audience by pushing it to front page thanks.

..
Collateral??
Like, I don't understand.
The two women did their transactions based on a buying-and-selling agreement.
They didn't agree to a lending-and-borrowing transaction.
So, why would she be confusing issues now??
Which colour of wickedness is this naa??
..
The business ended after she sold the machine and collected the money.
If she used the machine to borrow money, she would have told the woman naa, so that the woman would know that she was not buying the machine,, and then, they would also had discussed the period of repayment and interest.
Now, for the woman that was insisting that she used the machine to borrow money, (rather than selling the machine), she should produce evidence that she actually used the machine to borrow money, and then, the repayment period and interest and other agreements that went down with the lending and borrowing.
The receipt she was producing is actually an evidence against her (that is, if she produced her own copy of the receipt which she used in selling the machine to the woman)...
Because, the receipt will show that she actually sold the machine and totally handed the ownership of the machine over to the new lady.
Even if she presented the receipt she used in buying the machine,, the other woman can insist that she didn't collect any receipts from the woman when she resold the machine to her.

GreatAdvice:
This is a very simple case and anyone with half a brain should know that Woman B gave it to Woman A as collateral. It doesn't matter if its 9yrs ago or 9 days ago; Woman A needs to pay the money needed to buy a brand new machine in 2022, plus an annualised interest of 30% and severance pay for all the pain and suffering she has inflicted on Woman B. This is a very sad case, you should never sell someone's property that was handed over to you as collateral unless they default on their debt agreement.

There was no debt agreement..
If there is, then it cannot be reduced from the story, so I don't know how you arrived at this..
There is no evidence (inside the story) that it was given as a collateral.
Two evidences are clear already.
If money exchanged hands, it was sold.
If money didn't exchange hands, it was given freely.
...
For the fact they didn't agree that it was a loan before the exchange of money, then it cannot be taken as a loan.
Or else, let the woman produce a strong evidence that it was a loan, rather than a direct buying-and-selling.

Ehinjuola:
Hello NLanders,
I got caught up with something on my neck in my neighboood recently.

There's this woman (A) who bought a sewing machine from one woman (B) 9 years ago, suddenly woman B just came from nowhere to come and claim the sewing machine that she sold years back that she only use the machine as a collateral from woman A that she didn't sell it for her.

Now the issue is Woman A has sold the sewing Machine and also insisted that if truly woman's (B) use it as collateral for how many years now she would wish if Woman B paid her back with the interest on the money which the money is way much more than money for 100 sewing machines.

Now questions is, how will I go abt it cause I happened to be one of the landlords in my area( I guess I am the youngest) and we are called to come and judge over the matter.
1. Woman's A doesn't posses the receipt of the sewing machine and as already sold the sewing machine
2. Woman's B want the machine at any cost claiming she has the receipt with her and she will use it against woman's A in court ( If the judgement didn't suite her taste in landlord meeting)


Note: They've gone to police station around early February which they've told woman's A abt the important of receipt and also let it known to woman's B that collateral shouldn't be more than a year and after that the person you borrow something from might as well claim the ownership what you use as collateral (Don't know maybe there's any law backing it though)

Abeg let it gain more audience by pushing it to front page thanks.

Meanwhile,, what I the latest update on this case??
What later happened?

Ehinjuola:


THE CASE WAS LATER SUMMONED TO COURT and will take place ON THE 10TH OF MAY 2022 WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE FIRST TRIAL.

and 2 of the landlords and I is appointed to represent in court on that day.

will updates you guys on the outcome.

UPDATES!!!


Morning N'landers...

I couldn't update you earlier on the case, Sorry for that.

When we got to the court on that faithful day, the plaintiff
refused to show up till around pass 10:00am in which the sitting was stipulated by 9:00am this triggered the judge which order her to pay fine due to how she disrespected court law n wasted their time.
On the other hand the, defendant lawyer requested some of 10K as a defamation and also as a damages from the plaintiff but the judges tempered justice as he reduced it to 2K.

I Was just laughing where I am, like wtf is going on here So I wasted my precious time for this.

What funny most is that as I typed this the plaintiff has never show to pay for the fine.

THE CASE WAS LATER SUMMONED TO COURT and will take place ON THE 10TH OF MAY 2022 WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE FIRST TRIAL.

and 2 of the landlords and I is appointed to represent in court on that day.

will updates you guys on the outcome.

UPDATES!!!


Morning N'landers...

I couldn't update you earlier on the case, Sorry for that.

When we got to the court on that faithful day, the plaintiff
refused to show up till around pass 10:00am in which the sitting was stipulated by 9:00am this triggered the judge which order her to pay fine due to how she disrespected court law n wasted their time.
On the other hand the, defendant lawyer requested some of 10K as a defamation and also as a damages from the plaintiff but the judges tempered justice as he reduced it to 2K.

I Was just laughing where I am, like wtf is going on here So I wasted my precious time for this.

What funny most is that as I typed this the plaintiff has never show to pay for the fine.

THE CASE WAS LATER SUMMONED TO COURT and will take place ON THE 10TH OF MAY 2022 WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE FIRST TRIAL.

and 2 of the landlords and I is appointed to represent in court on that day.

will updates you guys on the outcome.

UPDATES!!!


Morning N'landers...

I couldn't update you earlier on the case, Sorry for that.

When we got to the court on that faithful day, the plaintiff
refused to show up till around pass 10:00am in which the sitting was stipulated by 9:00am this triggered the judge which order her to pay fine due to how she disrespected court law n wasted their time.
On the other hand the, defendant lawyer requested some of 10K as a defamation and also as a damages from the plaintiff but the judges tempered justice as he reduced it to 2K.

I Was just laughing where I am, like wtf is going on here So I wasted my precious time for this.

What funny most is that as I typed this the plaintiff has never show to pay for the fine.

for those asking for update.

justice has been done since.