Lending Liability - Revision history

RevampBot: Wiki revamp: restructure & modernise

2026-07-17T12:00:00Z

Wiki revamp: restructure & modernise

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:00, 17 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The [[~~Basic~~ Requirements ~~of a Freegle Group~~]] state that it is a Highly Recommended policy for local groups to ~~not~~ allow messages asking to borrow items.		The [[Community Affiliation Requirements Policy]] state that it's a Highly Recommended policy for local groups not to allow messages asking to borrow items.

	This page ~~is not~~ about the pros and cons of lending ~~and~~ or borrowing, either in general or via Freegle groups. It's about whether ~~or not~~ Freegle groups have a responsibility to inform their members of a risk they may not ~~be aware~~ they ~~are~~ taking. This page ~~outlines~~ advice received informally from friends in the ~~lead~~ profession.		This page isn't about the pros and cons of lending or borrowing, either in general or via Freegle groups. It's about whether Freegle groups have a responsibility to inform their members of a risk they may not realise they're taking. This page sets out advice received informally from friends in the legal profession.

			==Example to illustrate liability==
	Example to illustrate liability:
	*I ask to borrow a lawn mower.		*I ask to borrow a lawn mower.
	*You lend me a lawn mower.		*You lend me a lawn mower.
Line 10:		Line 9:
	*The mower leaks oil over my lawn.		*The mower leaks oil over my lawn.
	*The oil damages the lawn.		*The oil damages the lawn.
	*If the oil leaked because you, as the owner of the lawn mower, ~~did not~~ maintain ~~the mower~~ in a fit for use condition, (and ~~did not~~ tell me ~~that~~ it would leak oil over my lawn if I used it), you ~~are~~ potentially liable for the damage ~~down~~ to my lawn.		*If the oil leaked because you, as the owner of the lawn mower, didn't maintain it in a fit-for-use condition (and didn't tell me it would leak oil over my lawn if I used it), you're potentially liable for the damage to my lawn.

	This is because:		This is because:
	*When you lent me the mower, it was reasonable for me to assume ~~that~~ it would be safe for me to use ~~the mower~~ to cut my lawn.		*When you lent me the mower, it was reasonable for me to assume it would be safe for me to use it to cut my lawn.
	*If the mower should have been serviced and, say, the oil seals should have been replaced, the failure to properly service the machine is what ~~has~~ caused the oil leak and the damage ~~to the lawn. And~~ it is the owner who is responsible for maintaining the machine. ~~Which is~~ why you could be held liable for the damage to my lawn.		*If the mower should have been serviced, and say the oil seals should have been replaced, the failure to properly service the machine is what caused the oil leak and the damage - and it's the owner who is responsible for maintaining the machine. That's why you could be held liable for the damage to my lawn.
	*If I misused or damaged the mower ~~then~~ the damage to mower and lawn would be my responsibility.		*If I misused or damaged the mower, the damage to the mower and lawn would be my responsibility.
	*If the leak was just an accident ~~then~~ neither of us would be to blame.		*If the leak was just an accident, neither of us would be to blame.


	~~By way of comparison:~~
	*If you had given me the mower for free, then as the new owner I would be responsible for maintaining the machine, for doing the service and for replacing the oil seals.
	*Furthermore, if I attempted to sue you for supplying me with a damaged machine, the most I could do is ask for my money back (except in this example you gave it to me for free).


	~~So why should Freegle care about this liability as it would be a matter for the lender and the receiver to settle between themselves?~~
	*The argument that Freegle isn't involved is in fact quite strong. Because it is not reasonable for the lender or the receiver to believe that Freegle checked that the mower was fit for purpose.
	*However, as group owners we might feel we have responsibility to protect the interests of our members if we know something they don't.

			==By way of comparison==
	~~So what should happen about informing group members about this liability (assuming groups decided to allow borrowing requests)?~~		*If you had given me the mower for free, then as the new owner I would be responsible for maintaining it, servicing it and replacing the oil seals.
	*~~Assuming groups feel they have a responsibility to protect~~ the ~~interests of their members~~, then ~~they need to~~ be ~~clear that~~ it ~~is not~~ the ~~same as giving something away for free~~.		*If I then tried to sue you for supplying a damaged machine, the most I could ask for is my money back (though in this example, since you gave it to me for free, I paid nothing to begin with).
	*~~Freegle nationally should inform Freegle volunteers about~~ the ~~potential of liability~~ to ~~lenders so that they can make an informed decision about allowing borrowing requests~~.

			==Why should Freegle care about this liability?==
			Isn't this a matter for the lender and receiver to settle between themselves?
			*There's a fairly strong argument that Freegle isn't involved, because it's not reasonable for the lender or receiver to believe Freegle checked that the mower was fit for purpose.
			*However, as group owners, we might feel we have a responsibility to protect the interests of our members if we know something they don't.

	~~To clarify, our understanding of the liability of Freegle,~~ group ~~teams and individual volunteers is~~		So what should happen about informing group members about this liability, assuming groups decide to allow borrowing requests?
	*There is no contract between Freegle and its users, and therefore no general legal liability.		*Groups that feel they have this responsibility need to be clear that lending isn't the same as giving something away for free.
	*There is no Duty of Care. A Duty of Care arises where someone is (in legal terms rather than geographic) in close proximity, ~~and the risk is reasonably predictable. Freegle is not in close proximity~~ to ~~its users, and does not have reason to believe that most things lent are in any sense dangerous and therefore that there is a significant general risk.~~		*Freegle nationally should inform Freegle volunteers about the potential liability for lenders, so they can make an informed decision about allowing borrowing requests.
	*~~Having something which encouraged lenders~~ to ~~ensure items were fit for use would not incur any additional liability for Freegle or its volunteers, and could~~ be ~~helpful in preventing nuisance claims. Any groups~~ that ~~allow lending should let their members know of this aspect of~~ lending.
	*~~The Board made a strong recommendation 23.3.16 on Central to groups that allow lending or borrowing to~~ inform ~~their members of~~ potential liability ~~[https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FreegleUK-Central/conversations/topics/58047]~~.

			==Our understanding of Freegle's own liability==
			To clarify, our understanding of the liability of Freegle, group teams and individual volunteers is:
			*There's no contract between Freegle and its users, and therefore no general legal liability.
			*There's no Duty of Care. A Duty of Care arises where someone is (in legal terms rather than geographic) in close proximity, and the risk is reasonably predictable. Freegle isn't in close proximity to its users, and has no reason to believe that most things lent are in any sense dangerous, or that there's a significant general risk.
			*Encouraging lenders to ensure items are fit for use wouldn't incur any additional liability for Freegle or its volunteers, and could help prevent nuisance claims. Groups that allow lending should let their members know of this aspect of lending.
			*On 23 March 2016, the Board made a strong recommendation on Central that groups allowing lending or borrowing should inform their members of the potential liability [https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FreegleUK-Central/conversations/topics/58047].

	~~Links:~~		==See also==
	*[[Borrowing or Lending]]		*[[Borrowing or Lending]]
	*[[Specific Circumstances]]		*[[Specific Circumstances]]
	*[[How To Deal With]]		*[[How To Deal With]]

	[[Category:~~Specific Circumstances~~]]		[[Category:Difficult Situations & Problems]]

Jacky at 12:10, 24 March 2016

2016-03-24T12:10:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:10, 24 March 2016
Line 38:		Line 38:
	*There is no Duty of Care. A Duty of Care arises where someone is (in legal terms rather than geographic) in close proximity, and the risk is reasonably predictable. Freegle is not in close proximity to its users, and does not have reason to believe that most things lent are in any sense dangerous and therefore that there is a significant general risk.		*There is no Duty of Care. A Duty of Care arises where someone is (in legal terms rather than geographic) in close proximity, and the risk is reasonably predictable. Freegle is not in close proximity to its users, and does not have reason to believe that most things lent are in any sense dangerous and therefore that there is a significant general risk.
	*Having something which encouraged lenders to ensure items were fit for use would not incur any additional liability for Freegle or its volunteers, and could be helpful in preventing nuisance claims. Any groups that allow lending should let their members know of this aspect of lending.		*Having something which encouraged lenders to ensure items were fit for use would not incur any additional liability for Freegle or its volunteers, and could be helpful in preventing nuisance claims. Any groups that allow lending should let their members know of this aspect of lending.
			*The Board made a strong recommendation 23.3.16 on Central to groups that allow lending or borrowing to inform their members of potential liability [https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FreegleUK-Central/conversations/topics/58047].

Jacky at 08:45, 14 March 2016

2016-03-14T08:45:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:45, 14 March 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The [[Basic Requirements of a Freegle Group]] state that it is a Highly Recommended policy for local groups to not allow messages asking to borrow ~~item~~		The [[Basic Requirements of a Freegle Group]] state that it is a Highly Recommended policy for local groups to not allow messages asking to borrow items.

	This page is not about the pros and cons of lending and or borrowing, either in general or via Freegle groups. It's about whether or not Freegle groups have a responsibility to inform their members of a risk they may not be aware they are taking.		This page is not about the pros and cons of lending and or borrowing, either in general or via Freegle groups. It's about whether or not Freegle groups have a responsibility to inform their members of a risk they may not be aware they are taking. This page outlines advice received informally from friends in the lead profession.


Line 10:		Line 10:
	*The mower leaks oil over my lawn.		*The mower leaks oil over my lawn.
	*The oil damages the lawn.		*The oil damages the lawn.
	*If the oil leaked because you, as the owner of the lawn mower, did not maintain the mower in a fit for use condition, (and did not tell me that it would leak oil over my lawn if I used it,) you are potentially liable for the damage down to my lawn.		*If the oil leaked because you, as the owner of the lawn mower, did not maintain the mower in a fit for use condition, (and did not tell me that it would leak oil over my lawn if I used it), you are potentially liable for the damage down to my lawn.

	This is because:		This is because:
Line 31:		Line 31:
	So what should happen about informing group members about this liability (assuming groups decided to allow borrowing requests)?		So what should happen about informing group members about this liability (assuming groups decided to allow borrowing requests)?
	*Assuming groups feel they have a responsibility to protect the interests of their members, then they need to be clear that it is not the same as giving something away for free.		*Assuming groups feel they have a responsibility to protect the interests of their members, then they need to be clear that it is not the same as giving something away for free.
	*Freegle nationally should inform Freegle volunteers about the potential of liability so that they can make an informed decision about allowing borrowing requests.		*Freegle nationally should inform Freegle volunteers about the potential of liability to lenders so that they can make an informed decision about allowing borrowing requests.

Jacky at 17:44, 13 March 2016

2016-03-13T17:44:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:44, 13 March 2016
Line 26:		Line 26:
	So why should Freegle care about this liability as it would be a matter for the lender and the receiver to settle between themselves?		So why should Freegle care about this liability as it would be a matter for the lender and the receiver to settle between themselves?
	*The argument that Freegle isn't involved is in fact quite strong. Because it is not reasonable for the lender or the receiver to believe that Freegle checked that the mower was fit for purpose.		*The argument that Freegle isn't involved is in fact quite strong. Because it is not reasonable for the lender or the receiver to believe that Freegle checked that the mower was fit for purpose.
	*However, as group owners we have a responsibility to protect the interests of our members if we know something they don't.		*However, as group owners we might feel we have responsibility to protect the interests of our members if we know something they don't.


	So what should happen about informing group members about this liability (assuming groups decided to allow borrowing requests)?		So what should happen about informing group members about this liability (assuming groups decided to allow borrowing requests)?
	*Assuming groups have a responsibility to protect the interests of their members, then they need to be clear that it is not the same as giving something away for free.		*Assuming groups feel they have a responsibility to protect the interests of their members, then they need to be clear that it is not the same as giving something away for free.
	*Freegle nationally should inform Freegle volunteers about the potential of liability so that they can make an informed decision about allowing borrowing requests.		*Freegle nationally should inform Freegle volunteers about the potential of liability so that they can make an informed decision about allowing borrowing requests.


			To clarify, our understanding of the liability of Freegle, group teams and individual volunteers is
			*There is no contract between Freegle and its users, and therefore no general legal liability.
			*There is no Duty of Care. A Duty of Care arises where someone is (in legal terms rather than geographic) in close proximity, and the risk is reasonably predictable. Freegle is not in close proximity to its users, and does not have reason to believe that most things lent are in any sense dangerous and therefore that there is a significant general risk.
			*Having something which encouraged lenders to ensure items were fit for use would not incur any additional liability for Freegle or its volunteers, and could be helpful in preventing nuisance claims. Any groups that allow lending should let their members know of this aspect of lending.

Jacky: Created page with "The Basic Requirements of a Freegle Group state that it is a Highly Recommended policy for local groups to not allow messages asking to borrow item This page is not about..."

2016-03-13T17:21:00Z

Created page with "The Basic Requirements of a Freegle Group state that it is a Highly Recommended policy for local groups to not allow messages asking to borrow item This page is not about..."

New page

The [[Basic Requirements of a Freegle Group]] state that it is a Highly Recommended policy for local groups to not allow messages asking to borrow item

This page is not about the pros and cons of lending and or borrowing, either in general or via Freegle groups. It's about whether or not Freegle groups have a responsibility to inform their members of a risk they may not be aware they are taking.

Example to illustrate liability:
*I ask to borrow a lawn mower.
*You lend me a lawn mower.
*I use the mower to cut my lawn.
*The mower leaks oil over my lawn.
*The oil damages the lawn.
*If the oil leaked because you, as the owner of the lawn mower, did not maintain the mower in a fit for use condition, (and did not tell me that it would leak oil over my lawn if I used it,) you are potentially liable for the damage down to my lawn.

This is because:
*When you lent me the mower, it was reasonable for me to assume that it would be safe for me to use the mower to cut my lawn.
*If the mower should have been serviced and, say, the oil seals should have been replaced, the failure to properly service the machine is what has caused the oil leak and the damage to the lawn. And it is the owner who is responsible for maintaining the machine. Which is why you could be held liable for the damage to my lawn.
*If I misused or damaged the mower then the damage to mower and lawn would be my responsibility.
*If the leak was just an accident then neither of us would be to blame.

By way of comparison:
*If you had given me the mower for free, then as the new owner I would be responsible for maintaining the machine, for doing the service and for replacing the oil seals.
*Furthermore, if I attempted to sue you for supplying me with a damaged machine, the most I could do is ask for my money back (except in this example you gave it to me for free).

So why should Freegle care about this liability as it would be a matter for the lender and the receiver to settle between themselves?
*The argument that Freegle isn't involved is in fact quite strong. Because it is not reasonable for the lender or the receiver to believe that Freegle checked that the mower was fit for purpose.
*However, as group owners we have a responsibility to protect the interests of our members if we know something they don't.

So what should happen about informing group members about this liability (assuming groups decided to allow borrowing requests)?
*Assuming groups have a responsibility to protect the interests of their members, then they need to be clear that it is not the same as giving something away for free.
*Freegle nationally should inform Freegle volunteers about the potential of liability so that they can make an informed decision about allowing borrowing requests.

Links:
*[[Borrowing or Lending]]
*[[Specific Circumstances]]
*[[How To Deal With]]

[[Category:Specific Circumstances]]