Finders law.The law on finders keepers gain its main authority from cases. Adam argued thatfinder’s rights are good against the whole world except the rightful owner. Inresponse, Jo argued that this is a generalization and questioned its application in allfinding cases. This essay will explore Adam and Jo’s propositions and confirm thatAdam’s statement is generalized and exceptions exist in case law. This essay will alsoexamine the rights of the finder against the true owner, the subsequent possessor, thefinder’s employer and the occupier or owner of the land. Questioning the policyunderpinning finders law and drawing on a range of case law to negate the propositionthat a finder holds the possessory title over all but the original owner.Finder’s rights trump all other rights to possession besides that of the original owner.In order to establish finder’s rights, the finder needs to make an attempt to find theoriginal owner.

'Finders keepers, losers weepers!' This age-old adage implies that when a person finds a lost object, he or she becomes the new, rightful owner of that piece of property. Behzad Mirhashem, associate professor at the University of New Hampshire School of Law, said this provision in the criminal code seems unusual because many people operate under the notion of “finders, keepers.” The other somewhat unusual thing is that most laws penalize people for actions they commit.

1 If the finder engages in illegal activity in order to obtain the item, thefinder’s rights will be minimal. 2 The finder needs to be in physical possession of theitem. If the item is obviously abandoned the finder will have ownership. Howeverdistinguishing between abandoned or lost property can be tricky.The policy underpinning the law of finders is to reunite original owners with lostproperty, but also to prevent a survival of the fittest brawl for possession of lostproperty. 3 Consequently the true owner has priority over the finder.

4 As Jo suggests,this rule does not always apply, as when the owner abandons the property.Abandonment requires the intention to renounce all proprietary interests in thatproperty. 5 The law treats abandoned property as ownerless. Which is how the nextperson to find the ownerless property obtains full proprietary rights.` Some propertymay be lost, misplaced; hidden or stolen in which case the owner has no intention ofrelinquishing all proprietary rights.

In cases like these distinguishing which party has1 Parker v British Airways Board 1982 QB 1004.2 Sackville & Neave, Australian Property Law, 2013, 9th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths,p112. 3Tooher J & Dwyer B, Introduction to Property Law, 2002, 4th edition, LexisNexisButterworths, Chatswood at para.

3.5 45 Armory v Delamirie 93 ER 664.Re Jogrose Pty Ltd 1994 J QD 382at 385proprietary rights are tricky. The court is more likely to award the true ownerproprietary rights. When the true owner cannot be found or is unknown, the trueowner is not a party to a priority dispute and therefore the finder will be awardedproprietary rights. A finder may lose priority rights over property if found guilty ofdishonest intent or wrongful conduct, ie trespass. Consequentially, Adam’s statementin this instance is mainly correct, however Jo’s argument stands strong proving thateven against the original owner there is circumstances where the finder will prevail.In order to make a reasonable attempt to find the true owner the finder will hand overthe property to someone to locate the true owner. This could be the police such as incases like Authority v Flack, 6 where the police confiscated the property. Or as foundin Parker v British Airways Board where the property was handed to an employee ofthe premises where the property was found.

7 In both cases the finder became the priorpossessor and the other party became the subsequent possessor. Mad skills motocross 2 mod apk ios. Both these cases heldthat prior possession prevails over subsequent possession.

Similarly in Armory vDelamirie 8, the court held that the boy who found the jewel was entitled to it as hisprior possession conquered the jeweler’s subsequent possession. Prior possessiongenerally trumps subsequent possession, unless prior possession has been abandoned,transferred such as gifting or selling the property to another person or terminated bylaw due to the finder participating in unlawful activity or if the finder passes away. 9Again the general principle of finder’s law as per Adam’s argument exists.An exception to Adam’s argument arises when the finder acquires the property as aservant or employee. 10 There are two circumstances in which the employer will have abetter claim to the property found than the finder. If the employment contract betweenthe employer and finder requires the finder to give up anything found during thecourse of employment or if the employment of the finder provides the effective meansof the finding, the employer will have a strong claim to the property found.

In Byrne v6 Chairman, National Crime Authority & Anor v Flack, Margaret Elizabeth 1998FCA 932; 156 ALR 501. 78 1982 1 QB 1004.9 93 ER 664.Ma, Winnie (2003) “Finders keepers losers weepers?” The National Legal Eagle, vol9, issue 1, article 2. 10Hannah v Peel 1945 1 KB 509.Airways Board, 16 it was established that the finder prevailed based on the lack ofpossession by the landowner. However, in the case of South Staffordshire WaterCompany v Sharman, 17 the landowner prevailed over the finder in a matter over goldrings embedded in mud at the bottom of a swimming pool.

These cases provide aclear principle showing that the finder will have a better claim unless the landownercan show manifested intent to exercise control over the property found. However italso provides substance for Jo’s argument that the general principle of finders keepersdo not always apply as simply as Adam’s proposition suggests.Whilst Adam’s proposition is proven to be true, Jo’s correct in suggesting that it’svery generalized and that there are exceptions to the rule. Finders’ proprietary rightswill prevail in most cases except for against the true owner. However, in cases ofabandonment the finder will prevail over the true owner. In the same sense the finderwill have very limited proprietary rights when trespassing or conducting in otherunlawful activity in order to acquire the property. Similarly, the finder’s employermay prevail in cases where the finder’s employment is the cause of the finding or ifthe employment contract supports the employer’s rights on finder’s rights.

Jo’sargument is once again strengthened when landowners or occupiers prevails overfinders. It is clear that the policy and law does not provide much guidance and can beambiguous or unclear however due to the nature of the circumstances the calls for awider discretion and interpretation in order to fulfill the underpinning policy ofreuniting owners with their lost property and protecting their rights of those who haveno abandoned their property. 16 1982 QB 1004. 17 1896 2 QB 44.

This article needs additional citations for. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: – ( December 2009) Finders, keepers is an English adage with the premise that when something is unowned or abandoned, whoever finds it first can claim it. This idiom relates to an ancient Roman law of similar meaning and has been expressed in various ways over the centuries. Of particular difficulty is how best to define when exactly something is unowned or abandoned, which can lead to legal or ethical disputes.

Contents.Application. One of the most common uses of 'Finders, Keepers' involves. Under international, for shipwrecks of a certain age, the original owner may have lost all claim to the cargo.