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

Freddie_Snowbits

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

bookworm1363 wrote: »

OP stated that he hates him

Not in the original Post does it.

bookworm1363

:rotfl:Oh dear. Thinnest argument ever. :rotfl:

Freddie_Snowbits

bookworm1363 wrote: »

:rotfl:Oh dear. Thinnest argument ever. :rotfl:

You pointed out the OP hated their Brother in the original post.

Unless my English is incredibly bad, I do not find the word hate in their post, perhaps you would like to point out where this is.

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

I will again reiterate that the LAW does not apply in this thread, as the real concern is that OP is worried about the welfare of their brother.

PS, do you fit car radios?

bookworm1363

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

You pointed out the OP hated their Brother in the original post.

Actually, I don't believe I did:

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.

is what I did say. And I meant every word of it.

Soooo:

Unless my English is incredibly bad, I do not find the word hate in their post, perhaps you would like to point out where this is.

#5. It's fairly easy to find, between #4 and #6. Never mind your English, I hope your counting skills can cope. :rotfl:

I will again reiterate that the LAW does not apply in this thread, as the real concern is that OP is worried about the welfare of their brother.

The law doesn't apply in cases of theft? An interesting concept.
However, I believe that according to that infamous #5, it is quite clear that no, the welfare of his brother is NOT OP's worry. Perhaps you could point out where it says that?

PS, do you fit car radios?

What a very random question from someone who seems intent to carry on an argument for reasons best known to himself! Is that relevant to the OP's case? No, I didn't think so. :rolleyes:

Freddie_Snowbits

I still stand by my point the law does not apply here, but the welfare of the Brother, is what the OP is concerned with.

4743hudsonj

ha, is it me or does it seem like two divorced parents arguing over who has the kid when the kid wants to live at both?

your all arguing about how he hates his brother, or has his welfare in mind, ive read through and cant see either even being suggested anywhere, why dont you all just get along and point out the correct law to help him, if you think different quote what you think and leave it at that! i would be overwhelmed if i got this sort of response and wish i hadnt of bothered.

Tozer

I give up on this post. "Law" by Google and prying into the relationship between OP and brother. This is getting ridiculous.

Nothing OP can do. Lets leave it at that!

phlogeston

Tozer wrote: »

I give up on this post. "Law" by Google and prying into the relationship between OP and brother. This is getting ridiculous.

Nothing OP can do. Lets leave it at that!

Law by Google. No, I studied my law at university.

There is plenty the OP can do, one thing would be to ignore your incorrect advice.

Nervous LLB(Hons)

Tozer

phlogeston wrote: »

Law by Google. No, I studied my law at university.

There is plenty the OP can do, one thing would be to ignore your incorrect advice.

Nervous LLB(Hons)

Couple of points here.

1. Yep, I studied law at University. And post grad. Oh, and I was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors 12 years ago and have done nothing but Company/commercial law ever since. So lets not get into who is better qualified?

2. I believe it is helpful to show a touch of respect to others in this sort of thing. If you disagree, then fine. But keep it respectful.

3. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I stand by my view that CC have good title and that the OP's only remedy is against his brother.

4. It is for OP to determine whose advice to follow. However, I disagree that my advice was "incorrect". I think, deep down, you know that I am right.

5. As I have said, this thread seems to have run its course.

phlogeston

Tozer wrote: »

1. Yep, I studied law at University. And post grad. Oh, and I was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors 12 years ago and have done nothing but Company/commercial law ever since. So lets not get into who is better qualified?

Excellent, then could you please explain how the limited exception of good faith purchaser for value could possibly apply in these circumstances.

It is an exception that would only apply if the there was a voidable contract between the two brothers for the sale of the items.

As there is no contract of sale between the brothers (voidable or otherwise), the law will protect the true owner of the property, not the innocent purchaser.

I did not start the insults; you stated that those of us posting the correct legal advice on this page had only got our knowledge through google. I merely corrected your mistake.