Break-ups and possessions

unholyangel

halibut2209 wrote: »

Because you're talking about business to consumer transactions, not consumer to consumer. Not that this is either.

If theres a contract in place, theres a higher degree of care expected. But even if a friend loans you a cd, you have a duty of care to look after that cd as if it was your own (where if it belongs to someone else, you have a higher degree of care).

halibut2209

In which case all the advice above applies. It's nonsense to imply that the OP's friend will be liable for 6 years.

The fact of the matter is that the OP's friend needs to give a reasonable amount of time for the goods to be collected otherwise they will be forfeit. No judge would rule otherwise. This isn't Judge Judy.

antrobus

RosiPossum wrote: »

....My question about this part is how long does she need to keep hold of his things for or can she just throw them out after making them available to pick up for weeks?...

See section 12(3) Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977

If the bailee (that's the friend)—

(a)has in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act given notice to the bailor (that's her boyfriend) of his (or her) intention to sell the goods under this subsection, or

(b)has failed to trace or communicate with the bailor with a view to giving him such a notice, after having taken reasonable steps for the purpose,

and is reasonably satisfied that the bailor owns the goods, he shall be entitled, as against the bailor, to sell the goods

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/32

unholyangel

halibut2209 wrote: »

In which case all the advice above applies. It's nonsense to imply that the OP's friend will be liable for 6 years.

The fact of the matter is that the OP's friend needs to give a reasonable amount of time for the goods to be collected otherwise they will be forfeit. No judge would rule otherwise. This isn't Judge Judy.

Well it doesnt stop him having a claim for 6 years, it only gives her a defence against any such claim in that the "loss" occurred through his negligence (in not picking up goods/contacting her once she made him aware after a certain time she would dispose of them) rather than her breach of care. I dont think anyone was saying otherwise (may be mistaken but thats how i interpreted the posts).

ThumbRemote

antrobus wrote: »

See section 12(3) Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977

If the bailee (that's the friend)—

(a)has in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act given notice to the bailor (that's her boyfriend) of his (or her) intention to sell the goods under this subsection, or

(b)has failed to trace or communicate with the bailor with a view to giving him such a notice, after having taken reasonable steps for the purpose,

and is reasonably satisfied that the bailor owns the goods, he shall be entitled, as against the bailor, to sell the goods

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/32

Thanks for that. Do you know if the bailor is subsequently entitled to the proceeds of the sale?

antrobus

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Thanks for that. Do you know if the bailor is subsequently entitled to the proceeds of the sale?

I believe that they are. The bailee (the person with the goods) can deduct their expenses from the proceeds, but otherwise the proceeds belong to the owner of the goods, who will have six years to claim the money concerned.

adouglasmhor

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I know that abandoned and left behind goods remain the property of the owner, and the statute of limitations is 6 years.

Maybe you could explain why that doesn't apply to personal possessions?



Ditto.

Maybe you can explain why you think a personal relationship is the same as a financial or business transaction?

And what you posted applies to comercial premises only, as was clear from you link.

arcon5

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Maybe you can explain why you think a personal relationship is the same as a financial or business transaction?

And what you posted applies to comercial premises only, as was clear from you link.

Maybe you can explain why you think the Torts (...) Act doesn't apply? Since appears not to restrict its application to a business capacity.

adouglasmhor

arcon5 wrote: »

Maybe you can explain why you think the Torts (...) Act doesn't apply? Since appears not to restrict its application to a business capacity.

The fact it uses Bailment as its de facto description of relationship. where is the Bailor and Bailee in a personal relationship?

antrobus

adouglasmhor wrote: »

The fact it uses Bailment as its de facto description of relationship. where is the Bailor and Bailee in a personal relationship?

The bailee is simply the person who has possession of the goods and the bailor is the person who owns the goods. Whatever 'personal relationship' might or might not have existed between the two at any point in time is of no legal consequence.

Unless of course the bailee and bailor are married or in a civil partnership, whatever. Which is the kind of 'personal relationship' recognised in law. Otherwise the law takes no account of who you have sex with, share meals with, etc.