Finders - case chart PDF

Preview

Summary

Case chart and summary for the law surrounding Finders - Case Law A...

Description

Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers (And Occupiers!) Case Comparison Chart

Name Armory v Delamirie Finder

Bridges v Hawkesworth Finder

Elwes v Brigg Gas Company Owner

Court KB (Kings Bench)

Material Facts A person found an item and took it to a shop. The shopkeeper kept the item. The true owner could not be found.

Issue Whether the finder of an item acquires property/title to the item that enables him/her to keep it as against all but the true owner?

Ratio Formulate the ratio or legal principle: The finder of an item acquires property/title to the item that enables him/her to keep it as against all but the true owner?

Other Chimney boy – Jewel

QB (Quee n bench)

A person found an item in a shop in a place that the public had access to. The true owner could not be found.

Whether the owner of the place where a lost item is found acquires a better right to it than the finder, when the lost item is not in his/her custody or within the protection of his/her property, before it is found and the true owner cannot be found?

The owner of the place where a lost item is found does not acquire a better right to it than the finder, when the lost item is not in his/her custody or within the protection of his/her property, before it is found and the true owner cannot be found.

Cur Adv Vult Bank notes found on floor in shop Obiter dictum Armory is law

Ch D

Landlord/property owner leased land to Tenant/occupier Lease did not explicitly or impliedly say that items found in land were to be the property of the tenant Tenant found item under surface of land True owner could not be

Whether a landlord/ property owner, despite being unaware of their existence, has a better right to items found under the surface of their land than the tenant/occupier finder in the absence of an explicit or implied term in the lease stating otherwise?

A landlord/ property owner, despite being unaware of their existence, has a better right to items found under the surface of the land than a tenant/occupier finder in the absence of an explicit or implied term in the lease stating otherwise.

Boat under the land Didn’t matter that owner was unaware of the boat.

found Property owner/landlord unaware of existence of item until found South Staffordshire Water Company v Sharman

QB (Quee n Bench)

A company owned a property and employed a person to clean it. During the course of the employment the person found items in mud in the pool. The true owner could not be found. The owner of the pool was unaware of the existence of the items.

Whether a property owner who has possession of a place with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the things which may be upon or in it has a better right to any items found there, than the finder?

A property owner who has possession of a place with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the things which may be upon or in it has a better right to any items found there, than the finder.

Rings Appeal case Employee acting as an agent of owner. Owner needs de facto Private property enough of manifest intention to control. On or in land

KB (King bench)

Property owner had never occupied house Property requisitioned by government Item found in property Item was not attached to property Property owner did not know of existence of item

Whether the owner of a property, who has never been in physical possession of it, has the right to items found in or on it, but not attached to it, when he/she is unaware of the existence of the items, than the finder?

The owner of a property, who has never been in physical possession of it, does not have a superior right to items found in or on it, but not attached to it, when he/she is unaware of the existence of the items, than the finder.

Unattached to Broach

QB (Quee n Bench)

An occupier allowed certain members of the public to enter its property. A person was lawfully on the property and found an item on the floor. He/She took the item to an official for the purpose

Whether an occupier who restricts entry to his/her property to certain members of the public, but takes no other step to demonstrate an intention to exercise control over things found on the

An occupier who restricts entry to his/her property to certain members of the public, but takes no other step to demonstrate an intention to exercise control over things found on the property, does not

Appeal Gold Bracelet

Owner

Hannah v Peel Finder

Parker v British Airways Board Finder

Tamworth Industries v AG Finder

HC (High Court NZ)

of finding the true owner. The true owner could not be found.

property, has a superior right to items found there over the finder, when the true owner cannot be found?

have a superior right to items found there over the finder, when the true owner cannot be found.

Occupier leased property Public had reasonable access to the property that was unrestricted Item found in box on ground under building True owner could not be found

Whether an occupier of a property has manifested an intention to exercise control over the property and the things that may be on it or in it, in order to have a stronger claim to an article found there than the finder, when the true owner cannot be found, if he/she has allowed unrestricted public access to the property?

An occupier of a property has not manifested an intention to exercise control over the property and the things that may be on it or in it, in order to have a stronger claim to an article found there than the finder, when the true owner cannot be found, if he/she has allowed unrestricted public access to the property.

NZ case – strongest precedent...