MIMF

Darryl Young wrote:
If he retops, seems he would need compensated for the cost of the original top/materials, the labor in building/tuning/assembling the original top, the cost of the new top/materials, the labor to build/tune/assemble/finish the new top. If he is just compensated for the replacing the top, he isn't compensated for his original labor loss which is significant.

Err, no: that's double-dipping. The law of tort requires that the injured party be 'made whole,' that is, returned as close to his status quo ante as money can make possible. If somebody wrecks your car, you won't get the value of your old car plus the price of a new one!

If Alan were not the builder, simply the owner, and the owner of this instrument took it to a luthier, the defendant would be obligated to pay for the cost of restoring the instrument to like-new condition, which is what the owner possessed before (depending on the state and the judge, he could also claim the cash difference for any decrease in value of the re-conditioned axe from brand-new).

Your right Bill......assuming he can sell it as new and get full price.

Once re-topped, he can sell it as new with a clear conscience. No need to even inform the buyer. How many of us have found a flaw while building an instrument and replaced that part before completing the instrument? No problem there, and this is no different.

And again, the difference here is that the guitar has never been sold or previously owned. If it had been owned, even after re topping, All would have to sell it as "restored" or "re topped" and not new.

"And again, the difference here is that the guitar has never been sold or previously owned. If it had been owned, even after re topping, All would have to sell it as "restored" or "re topped" and not new."
So following this reasoning to it's logical conclusion if someone buys a previously owned kitchen table and turns it into a guitar it could only be sold as "used" ? <g> If the rosette is salvaged from the old top, is the new top then a repair because some of the old top has been used in it's construction? And isn't it ironic that we like to use "old" wood in our "new" constructions!
Although I understand the economic implications of repairing the top rather than retopping the guitar, I hope I never develop the mindset that I "have to destroy the village in order to save it".
I realize I'm being a bit of a gadfly, but hope my remarks are taken in the humorous vein intended.

Your remarks only serve to muddy the waters.....