- Australia's #1 Legal Community is a community of 10,000+ Australians, just like you, helping each other.
Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
Join us, it only takes a minute:

VIC Arrogant DJ Demands I Pay Him $120

Discussion in 'Other/General Law Forum' started by Cal McCrimmon, 30 September 2014.

Find a Lawyer Form
Find a Lawyer Form
Find a Lawyer Form
  1. Cal McCrimmon

    Cal McCrimmon Member

    13 August 2014
    Likes Received:
    I was extremely drunk at a party and apparently I sat or fell on the DJs $120 bubble machine. I am 16 and the dj is just a 17 yr old kid from my school. He has messaged me demanding I pay him the money to replace it and he hasn't been very polite or nice about it. Usually I would take responsibility for my actions and offer to replace the bubble machine however the dj is extremely arrogant and not a very nice guy so I am wondering if I am legally obligated to replace it? Also if this guy is supposedly running a dj company, is he required to have insurance on his equipment?
  2. Sophea

    Sophea Well-Known Member

    16 April 2014
    Likes Received:
    Hi Cal,

    There is not much that your DJ friend can do to enforce his demand for $120.

    Since this is a civil dispute - ie a civil wrong (not a criminal wrong) between 2 persons it will not involve the police , he would have to sue you through the courts to get the money and the fee for lodging a claim would likely exceed that amount. You can be sued at any age, it makes no difference if you are under 18 years. However people usually don't bother suing you unless they know you have the money to pay what they are asking and it won't cost more than they are asking. Civil law covers things like breach of contracts and cases of negligence.

    Your DJ friend may have grounds to sue you for negligently damaging his property which would entitle him to a right of compensation for the damage (from you), however he would have to prove that you acted negligently, i.e. that a reasonable person in your position would not have done what you did and that you failed to exercise “reasonable care”. However there may also be an argument that he was contributory negligent in failing to exercise reasonable care to protect his equipment in the presence of 'extremely drunk' teenagers.

    The moral thing to do would obviously be to pay him, however I don't think you should be worried about legal ramifications.
  3. Rod

    Rod Well-Known Member

    27 May 2014
    Likes Received:
    Agree. His attitude should not affect your decision to pay or not pay. If you believe you did something wrong, regardless of the type of person he is, pay up, at least a portion of the money if you think there was some fault by him.

Share This Page