Brought stolen item in good faith?
Discussion
R4 on the way home had a piece about stolen items from the British museum, and an ex-detective from the Met who said if they were brought in good faith by a third party they can’t be claimed back from them.
Now I always thought that if you buy a stolen car (in good faith) and the original owner/ins co find out, you have the car taken off you, tough luck.
So, am I wrong about stolen cars, is the detective wrong about stolen artefacts or is there a difference between stolen cars and stolen artefacts?
Now I always thought that if you buy a stolen car (in good faith) and the original owner/ins co find out, you have the car taken off you, tough luck.
So, am I wrong about stolen cars, is the detective wrong about stolen artefacts or is there a difference between stolen cars and stolen artefacts?
Bought.
And a police officer isn’t a reliable source to get an unvarnished version of the law from.
Could be a civil matter sir, for example. Or he’s made it up. Or is genuinely mistaken.
I’m sure legal types can correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understood it if someone’s nicked your car or your mums pearls or your marble statue, it’s not theirs to sell so it can’t be legally sold, or bought.
And a police officer isn’t a reliable source to get an unvarnished version of the law from.
Could be a civil matter sir, for example. Or he’s made it up. Or is genuinely mistaken.
I’m sure legal types can correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understood it if someone’s nicked your car or your mums pearls or your marble statue, it’s not theirs to sell so it can’t be legally sold, or bought.
Never ask a policeperson for legal advice.
Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one can give what they do not have"..
An innocent (or good faith) buyer of goods might discover that the property is stolen. The general rule is that a thief cannot pass good title to a third party – even if such a person is entirely honest. The rule is often expressed as nemo dat quod non habet.
Consumer Rights Act 2015 would protect if you buy at auction. In a contract of sale, the seller must have the right to sell the goods at the time of the actual sale or, if the contract is an agreement to sell, they will have the right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass to the buyer
Rowland v Divall is a reference case.
Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one can give what they do not have"..
An innocent (or good faith) buyer of goods might discover that the property is stolen. The general rule is that a thief cannot pass good title to a third party – even if such a person is entirely honest. The rule is often expressed as nemo dat quod non habet.
Consumer Rights Act 2015 would protect if you buy at auction. In a contract of sale, the seller must have the right to sell the goods at the time of the actual sale or, if the contract is an agreement to sell, they will have the right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass to the buyer
Rowland v Divall is a reference case.
easyhome said:
an ex-detective
I really wouldn't trust any legal knowledge of a Detective. Unless they are current and specialist in an area, a PC with one years experience will have more legal knowledge..Especially one whose legal knowledge maybe many years out of date. Plus the source is the beeb.
sherman said:
How many of the arifacts in the British museum meet that criteria?
They're clearly as bored of that joke as everyone else, so here is their contested objects page: https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-mus...The British Museum said:
The British Museum acknowledges the difficult histories of some of its collections, including the contested means by which some collections have been acquired such as through military action and its consequences. In other instances, collections may be acquired during a period of conflict but the exact circumstances of how they were acquired are not known. The British Museum is actively engaged in re-examining the acquisition histories of such collections and caring for them with appropriate respect, in close dialogue with colleagues and partners from countries around the world.
Can't wait until the Scandinavians start demanding their massive poo back from the Jorvik Centre, or Italy demands their soggy leather items from Vindolanda... donkmeister said:
sherman said:
How many of the arifacts in the British museum meet that criteria?
They're clearly as bored of that joke as everyone else, so here is their contested objects page: https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-mus...The British Museum said:
The British Museum acknowledges the difficult histories of some of its collections, including the contested means by which some collections have been acquired such as through military action and its consequences. In other instances, collections may be acquired during a period of conflict but the exact circumstances of how they were acquired are not known. The British Museum is actively engaged in re-examining the acquisition histories of such collections and caring for them with appropriate respect, in close dialogue with colleagues and partners from countries around the world.
Can't wait until the Scandinavians start demanding their massive poo back from the Jorvik Centre, or Italy demands their soggy leather items from Vindolanda... They just dont know who they stole it from and how or if to give it back?
Its not ok to steal from them according to the news but until they figure out who they stole from they will keep their stolen goods?
it could be possible to obtain good title on goods, if the buyer bought in good faith from a decent seller, and 6 years passes (civil claims) for items such as antiques etc.
it does get complicated really as there has to be the element of dishonesty for criminal charges.
I imagine buying a chalice cup from the boot of a car, might not satisfy requirements, but if someone looted kept it a while, then someone sold it on, after they died, might satisfy good title, but it would be complicated with many laws.
But considering how much has been looted, and how little has been returned, most likely not much would happen.
it does get complicated really as there has to be the element of dishonesty for criminal charges.
I imagine buying a chalice cup from the boot of a car, might not satisfy requirements, but if someone looted kept it a while, then someone sold it on, after they died, might satisfy good title, but it would be complicated with many laws.
But considering how much has been looted, and how little has been returned, most likely not much would happen.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff