I did a search of old topics to see if this question had been specifically discussed and could not find it exactly.

I have a rental company that rented a big screen tv, cabinet, and home theatre system to defendant. The defendant sold the property to someone who took it to Mexico. The fair market value is under $1,500. The rental company knew about the theft after the second month when the loss of rental was also under $1,500 BUT did not report it to the police for 7 months so that the loss of rentals would be over $1,500.

I personally do not like the victim waiting for 7 months. Does anyone have an office policy about situations like this?

Why is the Rental company entitled to any rental loss at all?

Why isn't it theft of the fair market value of the property?

The detective submitted the case as a theft of service by rental agreement. I agree with you though. I would prefer to charge theft under $1,500.

I guess I am asking theoretically is the detective correct. Could this case be prosecuted as a theft of service and the victim could wait until the loss is a felony before filing it.

I think the topic was discussed in Value of Service .

My conclusion remains:

Mitigation of Damages

The civil law requires a party to take reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. Certainly in the case of the video owner that should be true. Once the rental value exceeds the replacement cost, the clock should not keep running indefinitely. After all, the thief can argue as soon as it became apparent the extended rental period was going to be beyond that originally contemplated by either party, the original owner had a duty to buy a replacement video. Furthermore, under the law of conversion, the thief becomes the owner of the property once he pays for it (and not the value of the continued deprivation). Gillette, 139 S.W.2d 646.

Pretty much the same thing ought to apply to the furniture owner. What I am saying is I like your idea of making the replacement cost equal the value of the service regardless of what the rental contract may say. That really serves to keep us out of the contract enforcement business.

Are you serious? There is a rental company out there that charges more for a 7-month rental than the entire value of the property they are renting?

Maybe you're looking at the wrong suspect.

Seriously, this sounds more like a rent-to-own contract. They may define it as a rental, but is it really a time-payment purchase? If so, you might charge hindering a secured creditor. I don't really like the idea of the victim turning a case into a felony that only became one by virtue of their failure to report it in a timely fashion, especially as the failure arguably makes it hard for us to recover the property.