My rights on something that belongs to me that older brother pawned.

bookworm1363

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

In the first instance, what you say is another load of codswallop,

And you can substantiate that, presumably?

Funny, because I know I can show I'm right:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/keeping_lost_found_and_uncollected_goods.htm#Stolen_goods

Stolen goods


When goods are stolen, the original owner still retains their legal right of ownership over the goods. When stolen goods are found a court, if necessary, can order the return of the goods or a compensation payment for the value of the article to be made to the original owner.
If someone gets stolen goods, even if they have paid a fair price and are unaware that the goods were stolen, the general rule is that the person with the goods does not usually get a legal right of ownership. The person with the goods must inform the owner and allow them to take them away, if they discover that they were stolen. Someone who buys goods, which they later find out were stolen, could try to claim compensation from the seller.

(my bolding)

and

s. 12(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. It provides an implied term in any contract of sale that the goods are the sellers to sell (i., not stolen / borrowed etc). There is no defence for breaching it.

the fact is the OP is after advice and the first thig is this is a civil matter, unless the OP wishes to recover their property by reporting the theft of goods by their brother, at which point it will become a matter for the Law.

One doubts at this stage, CC are interested in the matter, as no theft has been reported and the goods returned.

Actually, since OP himself said his brother had "stolen" the goods, one can safely assume that he does mean "theft" and that is a criminal offence, last I checked. The fact it hasn't been reported doesn't make it less so, it just makes it unreported theft.

Whether CC are interested or not, that is quite irrelevant. S.12(1) covers situations where the seller is selling stolen goods (whether the actual thief or a subsequent sale in the chain). This term is a condition so enables the purchaser to end the contract and claim any damages. A buyer who treats the contract as repudiated is entitled to return of the full purchase price even if they have enjoyed use of the goods for some time. This can operate harshly on one who innocently acquires stolen goods and then sells them on as they will have to refund the purchase price but will not be entitled to receive the goods back as in law they belong to the original owner. This position of the law was confirmed in Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 KB 500 concerning the sale of a stolen car. (see Zootscoot's excellent guide on SOGA here.)

Waiting with baited breath proof of the supposed codswallop. :rolleyes:

ts_aly2000

Everything is pinched in Cash Converters.. And excessively priced too. And filthy. The list goes on.

Technically they're handling stolen goods. Years ago when we were at University and we pawned things, the shops wanted RECEIPTS! No receipt = No money.

I would say go to the Police, but they'll probably charge you with handling stolen goods instead.. You know how useless they are.

myrnahaz

Could you buy them back from cash converters? I know it's not fair, but it would be cheaper than buying new ones.

Tozer

Andy_L wrote: »

I don't think that a pawn broker counts as a "market overt" so cash converters don't have legal title. However to reclaim them you'd have to prove they were yours and shop you brother to the police

Market overt is one exception (and a very limited one) to the legal principle of nemo dat quod non habet.

Generally, good faith purchasers without notice of a defect in title receive an effective legal transfer of title.

Tozer

bookworm1363 wrote: »

And you can substantiate that, presumably?

Funny, because I know I can show I'm right:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/keeping_lost_found_and_uncollected_goods.htm#Stolen_goods

(my bolding)

and

s. 12(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. It provides an implied term in any contract of sale that the goods are the sellers to sell (i., not stolen / borrowed etc). There is no defence for breaching it.

Actually, since OP himself said his brother had "stolen" the goods, one can safely assume that he does mean "theft" and that is a criminal offence, last I checked. The fact it hasn't been reported doesn't make it less so, it just makes it unreported theft.

Whether CC are interested or not, that is quite irrelevant. S.12(1) covers situations where the seller is selling stolen goods (whether the actual thief or a subsequent sale in the chain). This term is a condition so enables the purchaser to end the contract and claim any damages. A buyer who treats the contract as repudiated is entitled to return of the full purchase price even if they have enjoyed use of the goods for some time. This can operate harshly on one who innocently acquires stolen goods and then sells them on as they will have to refund the purchase price but will not be entitled to receive the goods back as in law they belong to the original owner. This position of the law was confirmed in Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 KB 500 concerning the sale of a stolen car. (see Zootscoot's excellent guide on SOGA here.)

Waiting with baited breath proof of the supposed codswallop. :rolleyes:

S.12 SOGA does not help here. It would provide a remedy against the brother on the part of CC but does not help the OP.

My view is that CC have received good legal title as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the defect in title.

If they suffered loss, the could proceed against the brother for breach of s.12. However, it is difficult to consider what loss they have suffered.

bookworm1363

I don't agree. The goods belong to the original owner and whether CC were of good faith or not is quite immaterial, they do not acquire legal title. If OP can show that the goods were his in the 1st place, he is entitled to get them or their price back.

I quote s.12 to clarify that CC are the ones who would have to go against OP's brother to recover the value paid if they had to, but until OP has his goods back, I agree CC haven't sustained any loss yet.

As I said, the difficulty will be for the OP to prove that the goods were his in the 1st place and that they were stolen from him. If he can do that, then the rest falls into place. Whether and how CC then decides to proceed agaisnt the brother is not OP's problem.

Freddie_Snowbits

bookworm1363 wrote: »

And you can substantiate that, presumably?

No, but the problem here is not the Stolen Goods or CC. The OP has a problem with the welfare of their brother. In this instance stating the law is meaningless. We should help OP to understand the condition of their brother to bring him back to a full part of society.

Locking him up is not going to do that.

Therefore, the quotes and law are what they are and meaningless codswallop.

Tozer

bookworm1363 wrote: »

I don't agree. The goods belong to the original owner and whether CC were of good faith or not is quite immaterial, they do not acquire legal title. If OP can show that the goods were his in the 1st place, he is entitled to get them or their price back.

.

That's your opinion but is not correct in law.

Exceptions to the nemo dat quod non habet legal principle are extremely complex....and very dull.. But I think you will find that a good faith purchaser for value is an exception.

Have a look at Commercial Law by Goode if you don't believe me! Law students spend about a term looking at the exceptions. I still have the scars.

phlogeston

Tozer wrote: »

That's your opinion but is not correct in law.

That is an opinion....

Tozer wrote: »

But I think you will find that a good faith purchaser for value is an exception.

Have a look at Commercial Law by Goode if you don't believe me! Law students spend about a term looking at the exceptions. I still have the scars.

It is an exception, but as the brother has no contract, let alone a voidable contract perhaps you could explain how this could possibly apply.

bookworm1363

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

No, but the problem here is not the Stolen Goods or CC. The OP has a problem with the welfare of their brother. In this instance stating the law is meaningless. We should help OP to understand the condition of their brother to bring him back to a full part of society.

Locking him up is not going to do that.

Therefore, the quotes and law are what they are and meaningless codswallop.

OP stated that he hates him, so I fail to see how your opinion on how he should deal with him has any relevance? He asked what he could do, I explained to him what his options were.

Your "therefore" is at best sophistry, at worse a plain refusal to graciously admit you were wrong. That's ok.