 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
07-07-2009, 09:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Frank assuming what I found on the internet is NY law, I agree with your interpretation -- the statute wouldn't start running until a demand was made. Other states might have more restrictive rules, NY probably has special reason to be more pro-owner on this issue.
My only point was that there could be circumstances -- as Corey suggested --that a true owner cannot recover stolen property from a bona fide purchaser, even though that purchaser technically may not have "title." As for the ethics of the situation I find that a tough call. Both the true owner and the BFP have sound claims and it seems unfair to penalize the BFP because he unwittingly bought from a thief, or more likely, from someone else who did. At the same time of course why should the owner suffer? I think there is no good answer -- as my torts teacher said, it is a situation calling for an arbitrary rule. 
|
|
#2
07-07-2009, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wouldn't feel sorry at all for the BFP... he can go back against his seller once the true owner has recovered his stuff.
What a mess it would be if the law was that if you can steel it and keep it hidden for some period of time, then whoever you sell it to has good title... Nope, I don't wanna live there.
|
|
#3
07-07-2009, 09:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
And if the seller/thief is in jail and has no resources, what then? Why should an innocent be punished?
|
|
#4
07-07-2009, 09:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
And think of the uncertainty "your" regime creates -- no one can be secure in their possessions because it might turn out they were stolen long ago. I think it is just an inherently bad situation with no good answer.
EDIT TO ADD And suppose it's a longer chain than three people -- do you have to unwind it at every step of the way? Suppose the item is the PSA 8 Wagner. It's been through at least five changes of ownership maybe more. Suppose someone could prove it was stolen from them 25 years ago? How do you propose dealing with that? Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 07-07-2009 at 09:21 PM.
|
|
#5
07-07-2009, 09:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I see... forget caveat emptor. The buyer need no longer figure out what he's buying, nor bother to know he has a reliable and trustworthy seller.
I need never buy at full price again. Just find what I want, get someone to steal it, then buy it from them for a close to full price. caveat erus. Let the owner beware.... Guess I need to sell all of my stuff before someone steals it. Truthfully, buy stuff from trustworthy folks. That's a solution.
|
|
#6
07-07-2009, 09:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Frank I am just saying I don't like either outcome.
But tell me, how would you resolve my Wagner hypothetical, and I will keep it simple in that there are only 5 intervening transactions (several through auction houses). It's in your courtroom. The owner from 25 years ago convinces you it was stolen from him. What do you do?
|
|
#7
07-07-2009, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Easily, and with good conscience, the stolen Wagner is returned to the original owner. And whoever had possession of the Wagner could seek recourse against the person from whom they bought it.
Needing to know your seller well certainly serves as a deterrent to fencing stolen items, which in turn is a deterrent to theft.
|
|
#8
07-08-2009, 04:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In the end, as with all things in law, there is no perfect answer. Under any proposed solution, one can always come up with instances in which someone is going to get screwed. But with the laches defense by the BFP, at least in that instance a court can carefully balance the equities and have the option of ruling that under the appropriate set of circumstances, the BFP can retain ownership.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
