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

sporedude

Now its becoming a battle of the E-Egos......

bookworm1363

Tozer wrote: »

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.

That's your opinion... but I think you will find that an exception to the rules doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist. There can be no sale at all of goods which the seller has no right to sell. The whole object of a sale is to transfer the property from one person to another. (Rowland v Divall 1923.)

Regardless of the good faith argument, the original owner is entitled to his goods back or adequate compensation.

bookworm1363

sporedude wrote: »

Now its becoming a battle of the E-Egos......

Not from my part, no... I am trying to advise the OP the best I can, and would appreciate to be allowed to do so without my opinion being dismissed as trash with nothing more than insults by people who have failed to give any advice themselves in the matter, but ultimately, OP must decide who he wants to believe and what to do himself, this is after all an internet forum. Personally, when I ask for advice, I tend to go for the person quoting relevant law rather than the person dismissing others with insults, but wouldn't the world be a boring place if we all acted the same?

MaximumImpact

The goods are not stolen per se at this time. For goods to be stolen they must meet all of the the 4 criteria.

1 - Dishonestly appropriated....(I presume that they were)

2 - Property (yes - it is a tangible piece of property_

3 - belonging to another ( yes it wasnt him)

4 - with the intention to permanently deprive


Ok...so point 4 is the sticking point.....the defence that brother has is that he didn't intend for the goods to be at the pawnbrokers for longer than x amount of time and would have bought them back.

So....OP needs to find out the time limit on the goods being bought back and then advise CC that if they are not bought back by his brother at that time then they will become evidence in a theft case. Also, OP needs to put an advisory call into the Police and explain the incident and the steps taken so far.

bookworm1363

As previously stated, CC are NOT pawnbrokers, they are purchasers and sellers of 2nd-hand goods.

MaximumImpact

As previously stated, CC are NOT pawnbrokers, they are purchasers and sellers of 2nd-hand goods.

I stand corrected. I thought CC bought second hand goods for cash and then gave the seller a limited amount of time to purchase the goods back before selling them on to the general public.

http://www.cashconverters.co.uk/financial-services-from-cash-converters/2/buybacks

Sorry OP, I was trying to help but obviously I know nothing. and will leave the more educated to assist you.

Tozer

phlogeston wrote: »

That is an opinion....



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.

The brother purported to enter into a contract.

The purchaser takes good title. That is the entire point of the exceptions to the nemo dat rule.

Tozer

bookworm1363 wrote: »

That's your opinion... but I think you will find that an exception to the rules doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist. There can be no sale at all of goods which the seller has no right to sell. The whole object of a sale is to transfer the property from one person to another. (Rowland v Divall 1923.)

Regardless of the good faith argument, the original owner is entitled to his goods back or adequate compensation.

So what do you think the point is of the exceptions to the nemo dat quod non habet rule are for?

IT IS NOT A SALE OF GOODS!!!! But the purchaser will still take title.

phlogeston

indierocker85 wrote: »

Hi

My older brother pawned his Nintendo Wii at cash converters. And also took it upon himself to help himself to games I bought and pawn them too. Not only did he do that. But one of them belongs to a 14 year old kid I borrowed from.

Do I have any rights to get them back?

My brother doesn't have a 2 pence to scratch his backside with so pointless even suggesting him getting them back

Anyone who has dealt with CC will know that they offer a number of services including pawnbroking and the purchase items for cash.

Given the tenor of the OPs post, I would suggest that goods have been sold for cash, not pawned, but only the OP would be able to confirm that.

The brother obviously has no intention of buying back the goods - he has stolen them.

There was never a contact of sale between the two brothers, so Tozer |I am afraid your exception to the rule DOES NOT APPLY.

bookworm1363

As far as I am aware, none of the exceptions apply here?

Mercantile Agent, Joint Owner, Voidable Contract, Possession of Goods after sale, Buyer in Possession, Unpaid Seller, Permission by Partner, Termination of Offer, Valid, quasi contracts, Condition: warranty, and tender/cheques.

Nemo dat quod non habet signifies that if you are not the legitimate owner of an item you are not justified to despatch it to anybody else as you cannot give something that does not belong to you, i.e. you do not have. This is designed to protect the true owners. If anybody is trying to sell an item without that legitimate owner’s permission, however, that transaction is unlawful. This principle is clarified in Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act which explains that anybody purchasing something without the consent of the legitimate owner only attains the same rights to an item as the dishonest seller.

Finally, for those who don't know the difference between pawnbrokers and buy-back companies, may I suggest the following reading:
http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/before_you_buy/thinking_about/pawn-broking/#named3

so as not fall foul of them should you ever need to use either of them?

I'll leave you gentlemen to argue amongst yourselves now and will hope OP gets a positive result.