What is the fundamental principle of the law of finders set out in the ruling in...

  

Transcribed Image Text:

What is the fundamental principle of the law of finders set out in the ruling in Armory v Delamirie? Why, according to the Court in South Staffordshire Water Company v Sharman, is the plaintiff entitled to the two rings? Identify and describe the two conditions under which an occupier will have a superior claim to a lost object over a finder as described by Lord Justice Donaldson in his ruling in Parker v British Airways Board. Why, according to the ruling in Ochoa v Rogers, is Ochoa not entitled to recover from Rogers, an innocent purchaser, the value of his stolen car as restored by Rogers? Explain why, according the decision in Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. "Co., the owner's of the steamship Reynolds were required to pay for the damages caused to Vincent's dock, even though they were entitled to remain connected to the dock during the storm. Jessica, Mark, and Susan were all soccer players, playing whenever the chance arose. One day they took their normal shortcut to the soccer pitch across the Jones's front lawn, passing the ball as they crossed. Susan passed the ball to Jessica; Mark noticed that the ball bounced over something on the lawn and went to investigate. He saw the top of a small box partially embedded- in the ground. As he dug it out, Jessica and Susan joined him, as did Mr. Jones who had been looking out his front window. Mark opened the box; inside was a ring that looked expensive (a subsequent appraisal would value the ring at $25,000). Mr. Jones politely but firmly insisted Mark hand the ring over to him, a request with which Mark complied. After a year, the true owner had not come forward to claim the ring. What is the likelihood that Mark will succeed in an action to recover the ring (or its value) from Mr. Jones? Why? What is the fundamental principle of the law of finders set out in the ruling in Armory v Delamirie? Why, according to the Court in South Staffordshire Water Company v Sharman, is the plaintiff entitled to the two rings? Identify and describe the two conditions under which an occupier will have a superior claim to a lost object over a finder as described by Lord Justice Donaldson in his ruling in Parker v British Airways Board. Why, according to the ruling in Ochoa v Rogers, is Ochoa not entitled to recover from Rogers, an innocent purchaser, the value of his stolen car as restored by Rogers? Explain why, according the decision in Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. "Co., the owner's of the steamship Reynolds were required to pay for the damages caused to Vincent's dock, even though they were entitled to remain connected to the dock during the storm. Jessica, Mark, and Susan were all soccer players, playing whenever the chance arose. One day they took their normal shortcut to the soccer pitch across the Jones's front lawn, passing the ball as they crossed. Susan passed the ball to Jessica; Mark noticed that the ball bounced over something on the lawn and went to investigate. He saw the top of a small box partially embedded- in the ground. As he dug it out, Jessica and Susan joined him, as did Mr. Jones who had been looking out his front window. Mark opened the box; inside was a ring that looked expensive (a subsequent appraisal would value the ring at $25,000). Mr. Jones politely but firmly insisted Mark hand the ring over to him, a request with which Mark complied. After a year, the true owner had not come forward to claim the ring. What is the likelihood that Mark will succeed in an action to recover the ring (or its value) from Mr. Jones? Why?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 Armory v Delamirie The fundamental principle of the law of finders as established in the ruling of Armory v Delamirie is that a finder of lost prope... View the full answer