Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
13 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Armory v Delamirie |
King Bench (UK) - Pratt CJ Ratio: That the finder of the item is to keep the item against all except the true owner. Other elements: Wrongdoing of the apprentice. Finder may maintain trover. |
|
|
Bridges v Hawksworth |
Queen's Bench (UK) - Patterson J - Cur ad vult Follows Armory, reversed decision from Ratio: That the finder of the item is to keep the item against the occupier who did not have any control over the item. Other elements: NOT waiving the title by giving the item to the occupier in order to find the true occupier. No de facto possession or control of notes before they were found. Place found made no difference? |
|
|
South Staffordshire Water Company v Sharman |
Queen's Bench (UK) - Lord Russell Distinguishes Bridges Ratio: that the finder of the item does not have superior rights over the owner of the locus in quo that has manifest intention to exercise control over the items upon or in it. Other elements: refers to Pollock Wright - attached to or under the land is part of the land. It does not matter that the owner is unaware of the existence, ie private house. Owners are the freeholders of the locus in quo, they have the right to forbid anybody coming on their land or in any way interfering with it which leads to manifest intention to exercise control. |
|
|
Elwes v Brigg Gas Co |
Chancery (UK) - Chitty J Ratio: that the owner of the land has prior rights to the finder regardless whether they know about the existence of the item, if the item is in the land. Other elements: |
|
|
Hannah v Peel |
King's Bench (UK) Birkett J - Cur ad vult Follows Bridges Distinguishes SSWC and Elwes Ratio: That the finder has superior rights to the item found on or in the building over the owner of the building. Other elements: The fact that the owner was never on the premises and had no prior knowledge of the item. The question about the owner vs the occupier. De facto control: excluding others off the land and have to hand in items. Comments that Bridges never referred to public part of the shop and points out that Lord Russell expanded on Pollock Wright when saying that on or in the land |
|
|
Parker v British Airways |
CA (UK) - Donaldson LJ, Eveleigh LJ Follows - SSC, Bridges, Armory Ratio: that the finder of the item has rights against the world except if someone with prior rights. Other elements: the scale of premises showing manifest intention. Bank vault vs petrol station
|
|
|
Tamworth v AG |
HC (NZ) - Eichelbaum CJ Adopts Parker Ratio: that the finder of the item has superior rights over items found in the derelict building unless the occupier shows manifest intention to exercise control over the building and items in it. Other elements: derelict building |
|
|
Finders Keepers Rules |
Rights and Obligations of Finder 1. Item has to be lost and finder has take into care and control 2. Limited rights if trespassing 3. Rights against all unless with someone with prior rights 4. Unless found it through employment 5. Advertise Rights and liabilities of the occupier 1.Superior rights if item is IN or ATTACHED TO LAND or ATTACHED TO BUILDING. 2. Superior rights if item is IN or ON A BUILDING + Manifest intention 3. Advertise 4. Ship, car, caravan same as building |
|
|
Cur ad vult |
Curia advisari vult - "the court wishes to be advised". Reserved decision. Highly persuasive. |
|
|
Obiter Dictum |
"By the way" statement which is not relevant to the decision of the case and are not binding on future cases. Quite often they are hypothetical statements. Only persuasive |
|
|
Deductive reasoning |
Assumes the existence of rules (common law, legislation) Proceeds from these generic rules to specific facts. (Bridges, Tamworth) |
|
|
Analogical reasoning |
2 or more case comparison From specific case to specific case The case used is like a template that helps with the decision. Legal issue and material facts must be similar. (Hannah, SSWC) |
|
|
Inductive reasoning |
Process of generalisation arising from decided cases. From specific cases creates a general rule. (Parker) |
