h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So here's the thing.

Last Friday I had a bump in the car park, dented my front wing, and cracked the other driver's rear bumper.

We have decided to pay for half of each other's damage and not to bother the insurance companies over a relatively minor bump.

So we both approached the same garage and asked for quotes.

Mine came back at a whopping £384.

I will find out tomorrow what my fellow collidee's damage will cost.

So on a whim I thought I'd seek out a different quote from another garage.

This one let me name my price, so on the spot I proposed £200 which he accepted (inc VAT £240)



So now to the problem.


DO I TELL THE DRIVER OF THE OTHER DRIVER ABOUT THE OTHER GARAGE?

Based on how my estimate dropped, I except whatever price she's been quoted can be under-cut by the cheaper garage.

If I tell her to get her car evaluated there, I will probably pay less for fixing her damage, but she will also pay less to me for mine.

Should I tomorrow accept whatever figure the original garage proposes and hope that the difference is off-set by the saving I'd make going cheaper.

Can I pretend to have the car repaired for the original £384 cost, but in fact have it repaired for £240?



What is the optimal arrangement and what should I do to achieve.


Ask, get yer' teeth into this one, I need an answer by tomorrow!!

Over here, I guess the insurance would pay out against a receipt, so the more expensive garage would make a bigger profit, perhaps, but none of the car owners...

Insurance isn't involved. We are both insured we'd rather keep out No claims and resolve it between ourselves. Particularly since responsibility is in this case shared, (and keeping up the game theory angle) there'd be no real benefit in claiming on insurance if you factor in any excess payments + future higher payments etc...

Also on the issue of receipts - this was a live debate at work yesterday, I lost the argument 100% that payment is for the 'injury' to the car and *not* for the bill of repair. Hence, so went the argument, the figure is agreed on the estimate. Where (or even whether) I get my car repaired is something neither of us need disclose.



(What inspired this thread was just how complex the psychological manoeuvring was getting. )

Driver of the other driver - whoops, I meant driver of the other car!

You will end up paying half the bill in all circumstances, so you might as well endeavour to get all the repairs done as cheaply as possible.

Or is there something I'm not seeing?

B

For example I pay half of her bill at the higher estimate

She pays me half of my bill at the higher estimate

I get my car repaired cheaply or not at all. Pocket the difference as a way of off-setting the cost of paying half of her damage. (the figures won't be equal so I'll pay something but less than outright)

So, basically, you're asking whether you can con a woman out of £140?

B

Just to be clear, my initial reaction was as you said be honest.

but in asking around the number of people who've said I owe them no (moral) obligation to be honest about where or even whether I get my car repaired, just got me thinking about the psychological machinations of what was the optimum solution given the predicting responses of other people's choices and if there was an optimal outcome?

Is it a con though?

My point about relating the tale from work yesterday, was I was presuming payment would be on the production of a receipt for work done. Not so ran the counter argument, what is being paid for is not the cost of repairs - that it incidental - it is for the 'injury' to the car.

Ergo, if one garage values the damage cost higher than another, can I (should I?) use the higher estimate to achieve a better outcome financially?


I'd have included something about ethics in there, but my impression from speaking to people about this is that insurance-type incidents are riven through with an absence of ethics (such as not admitting liability even if it was your fault.)

So on the drive back I found myself mulling the question over in my mind, and wanted to get a sounding from the good folks here.


It's partly hypothetical this, part actual, I'm just wondering is there a 'best overall' strategy possibly there are two, one that values ethical behaviour one that does not.

Plus, if she asks to see the actual bill at the end (repairs never quite cost what the estimate estimated), you will definitely get Frowned Upon.

I wonder if I would ever trust those people who advised you to quote the large price and get the cheap repairs done again...

It's entirely possible I work with a bunch of amoral sociopaths, you may think that I couldn't possibly comment.

This is an easy one. If you're a real bottom-dwelling slimeball, you don't tell her. If you have an ounce of decency, you do.

I think this is what happens when you don't have a moral God to guide you ... it's not easy being an atheist I suppose.

Who was actually at fault in this car bump? I would have thought if you have agreed to go halves then you should pay up once you both receive the final bills and give each other a photocopy of the bills. Obviously you need to check that you are paying for repairs to the damage that was caused by the bump only, and not for any other repair that might need doing. Hence, I recommend you both get a full breakdown of what is being repaired. It would also be best if you were both able to use the same garage with exactly the same billing procedures so that no-one is "pulling a fast one" on the other.

"Also on the issue of receipts - this was a live debate at work yesterday, I lost the argument 100% that payment is for the 'injury' to the car and *not* for the bill of repair. Hence, so went the argument, the figure is agreed on the estimate. Where (or even whether) I get my car repaired is something neither of us need disclose."

It seems you are an ideologist.

>>I think this is what happens when you don't have a moral God to guide you ... it's not easy being an atheist I suppose.<<

Is that for real? Really?

I'm an atheist and the first thing I thought when I'd read through Clive's posts was (sorry Clive) that it's a bit underhand. And I'd have said that if the other party had any sense they'd get 2 or 3 quotes and then go with the best one, as he should do. and if you go to a garage together there's a chance they might cut a bit more off for each of you too.

It has nothing to do with invisible friends.

>>If you're a real bottom-dwelling slimeball, you don't tell her. If you have an ounce of decency, you do.<<

Ouch.

Well so I'm not here defending myself from charges of being a bottom dwelling slimeball all evening, I'll do my best to clear this up.

I'd like to insist that when this debate broke out at work yesterday - my reply was "isn't that being a bit duplicitous?"

See when the accident happened, we've both of us been extremely civil towards each other.

What got me thinking about this was a series of remarks by a variety of people I was talking to such as "never admit liability" (the implication being even if it was your fault, though in this case responsibility is equally split). When discussing the paying half the other persons costs, discussion ran to having other damage not involved in the accident paid for (not as a suggestion I should do this more as a kind of general warning someone might try it.)

I spend a significant amount of my time day to day processing orders so I'm used to seeing purchase requests and invovices flying about, it was in that mode that I was considering this deal, so when I was discussing paying I had assumed it would be on production of a receipt for work done. (hence the comment about duplicity if someone tried to fake that.)

Turns out I'd got the wrong end of the stick from my interlocuters, becuase I was assuming the money to be paid on both or halves was for *the actual cost of repair* - what the argument was about was they said the money we'd pay each other was for the actual damage but for a hypothetical value - the estimate of the work to be done.

The money paid, it was then up to me, if I had it done cheaper elsewhere or even at all. Becuase, so the argument ran, the money wasn't *for* the bill of the cost of the repair but was a sum for the damage done. And I was theoretically at liberty to spend it then however I wished.


So that's the context in which this thought arrived.

After today's trip to the garage and finding out I could theoretically save £144 if I had it repaired there, it was on the drive back all these thoughts were whizzing round in my head and I was just wondering if there was an optimum outcome, bearing in mind I have imperfect knowledge of her quote from the first garage and what a new quote from the second garage might be. That is what got me thinking about game theory - the best choice with limited knowledge of other's intentions.

I posted this problem in a number of forums I vist, and I'm pleased to report that the wisdom of crowds on the web is duly impressive - every person to a fault has said optimum depends on if treating the other person decently is something I value over pure financial gain (it is) and the sense of worth I'd get would last longer than the £144. (I think it would.)

>I think this is what happens when you don't have a moral God to guide you ... it's not easy being an atheist I suppose.<

On the contrary, our moral sense is innate and our moral wisdom comes from each other.

If I truly was as morally corrupt as seems to be being implied, I wouldn't have bothered asking, now would I?

The blame was equal, I pulled into a car parking space she reversed into it, we met in the middle. crash bang tinkle.

Perhaps I could have phrased that better.

I was advocating payment upon production of a receipt for work done.

Almost nobody I spoke to yesterday agreed with me.

They said the money was the damage to the car, and not for the actual bill of repair.

It is that distinction that sets up this ethical dilemma.

I remind you I was the one advocating for payment on production of an itemised receipt.

You've agreed to split the cost of repairing your car between you and the other driver. You are therefore morally and legally obliged to tell them how much it cost, and not to give them a higher quote from a completely different garage.