LAWS101 - Finders
Cases from the Finders line - LAWS 101, University of Otago
Terms in this set (19)
Moffat v Kazana
Box of money in roof - sold house, forgot about it. New owner tries to claim.
- Held that true owner always has first right to the chattel.
ANZ Bank case
Bank desk given away - forgot about money in it.
- Held bank was true owner, money belongs to them.
Gilchrist Watt & Sanderson
Obiter statement - when you gain 'possession', you must keep it safe and return it. You are a BAILEE for the true owner
Warner v Elizabeth Arden
Necklace left in changing room - she left briefly, it was stolen. Tried to say owner of shop was liable for not looking after it.
- Held that owner had not taken possession at all - therefore owed no duty to look after it
Armory v Delamire
First finders case. Chimney sweep finds jewel, jewler tries to claim.
- Held that finder has rights against all but the true owner
- Held handing in for valuation does not divest control
Bridges v Hawkesworth
Notes found on shop floor. Finder picks up, gives to shop keeper to return to owner - no one claims.
- Held finder has better right than shop owner
- Held finder has rights only if no prior rights established
South Staffordshire Water v Sharman
Cleaning out pool - found 2 rings under mud.
- Held that possession of land includes things ATTACHED OR UNDER the land. Therefore owner has right.
- Obiter - manifest intent to control land = control over things ON the land.
City of London v Appleyard
Found old safe attached to wall of basement.
- Held that things ATTACHED to building were same as attached to land.
- Safe was attached, so was everything inside it.
Hannah v Peel
Army re-positioned a house. Soldier found brooch wedged in windowsill.
- Court held occupier did not live there - so could not manifest control. Therefore finder wins, as not attached.
Helson v McKenzies
Lady leaves large amount of $ in shop. Finder gives to shop owner - who gives away to who they think is the true owner.
- Held by giving it away to wrong person, shop owners were denying original owner's title.
- However only got 1/4 of damages, as found she had contributed to negligence by leaving bag there
Employees found metal box - asked employer "what should i do with this"? Turned out to have lots of money.
- Held that by saying "what shall I do with this?", finder had physical control but divested mental/ intent to control item
- Employer clearly asserted control over item by telling where to put it.
Parker v British Airways
Found bracelet in executive lounge of airport, while on business trip. Handed it in, but sold by airways. Established all rules for finders cases.
- Held that continuum existed of places:
bank vault (private) -------> petrol forecourt (public)
- Held you need to manifest intent to control lost things - e.g. obviously bank vaults, but not petrol forecourts.
- Held that airways had not manifested intent to control THINGS INSIDE area, even though area was VIP.
Tamworth Industries v Attorney General
Drug money found under floor (but above soil = not attached). Area inclosed by wire fence, however maize pickers all had access.
- Therefore held not sufficient manifest intent, given so many people had access.
Parker v British Airways - employment
Held that finding had to be incidental to employment for finder to win. e.g. if airway workers who cleaned the lounge found item, would probably go to employer
McDowell v Ulster Bank
Cleaning up bank - found notes on floor.
- Held bank wins - as duty clearly imposed on employee to pick up lost property and hand it in.
Bryne v Hoare
Drive in movie - police on duty to maintain order. Finds gold ingot, noone claims.
- Held not in the course of his employment - it was incidental to employment, as wasn't employed to find things.
- Does employment give an advantage over anyone else to find it? if not, then not in course of employment
Australian case - however should be followed because rationale encourages honesty.
Steel v Tube
Found steel in factory - argued it had been abandoned.
- Held that D was employee, steel found during stocktake (clearly in course of employment) and owner manifested control over warehouse.
= employer wins
Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher
Public park, owned by council. Prohibited metal detectors, but sign had fallen down. Finder used detector, found brooch.
- Held that council owned things UNDER the land, Digging up soil was not permitted use of land, but act of trespass.
= council wins.
Hibbert v McKiernan
Private golf course, police officer on duty to warn off trespassers. Finder trespassed to find 'abandoned' golf balls.
- Held that there was clear intent to exclude trespassers, therefore occupier had prior right to golf balls.
IF TRESPASSING, RIGHTS ARE LIMITED
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Test Preparation TOEIC, SAT, TOEFL
LAWS205 - Nature of Land Cases
Property 1 Cases
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
CrimJ Part 2 Cases
PSYC325 - Mid Term
LAWS101 - Confessions
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...
LAWS101 - Rylands v Fletcher
LAWS101 - Entrapment
LAWS101 - Donoghue v Stevens
Confessions Laws101 Otago