Break-ups and possessions

unholyangel

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I think you will find Sir William Jones was not American.

I think you'll find the section you quoted is sourced from West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

Each section has its source directly under it and that is the source listed for the section you quoted.

adouglasmhor

antrobus wrote: »

According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

Meanwhile, back in that jurisdiction known as England and Wales:-

Broadly, the transfer of possession (and not ownership) of goods by the owner (the bailor) to another person (the bailee) so that they might be used for a specified purpose on condition that they are returned to, or in accordance with the instructions of, the bailor, or kept until he reclaims them. The bailee does not own the goods, but has possession of them. The bailee has a duty to take reasonable care of the goods and return them in accordance with the terms of any express or implied contract of bailment.

http://uk.practicallaw.com/9-381-8490

But as there was no implied contract of bailment, this is irelevant. Leaving something somewhere and not collecting it puts no obligation on whoever you left them with.

6. Sir William Jones has divided bailments into five sorts, namely: 1. Depositum, or deposit. 2. Mandatum, or commission without recompense. 3. Commodatum, or loan for use, without pay. 4. Pignori acceptum, or pawn. 5. Locatum, or hiring, which is always with reward. This last is subdivided into, 1. Locatio rei, or hiring, by which the hirer gains a temporary use of the thing. 2. Locatio operis faciendi, when something is to be done to the thing delivered. 3. Locatio operis mercium vehendarum, when the thing is merely to be carried from one place to another. See these several words. As to the obligations and duties of bailees in general, see Diligence, and Story on Bailm. c. 1; Chit. on Cont. 141; 3 John. R. 170; 17 Mass. R. 479; 5 Day, 15; 1 Conn. Rep. 487; 10 Johns. R. 1, 471; 12 Johns. R. 144, 232; 11 Johns. R. 107; 15 Johns. R. 39; 2 John. C. R. 100; 2 Caines' Cas. 189; 19 Johns. R. 44; 14 John. R. 175; 2 Halst. 108; 2 South. 738; 2 Harr. & M'Hen. 453; 1 Rand. 3; 2 Hawks, 145; 1 Murphy, 417; 1 Hayw. 14; 1 Rep. Con. Ct. 121, 186; 2 Rep. Con. Ct. 239; 1 Bay, 101; 2 Nott & M'Cord, 88, 489; 1 Browne, 43, 176; 2 Binn. 72; 4 Binn. 127; 5 Binn. 457; 6 Binn. 129; 6 Serg. & Rawle, 439; 8 Serg. & Rawle, 500, 533; 14 Serg. & R. 275; Bac. Ab. h. t.; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 978-1099.

Q: Which of them applies here? A:none

ThumbRemote

adouglasmhor wrote: »

But as there was no implied contract of bailment, this is irelevant. Leaving something somewhere and not collecting it puts no obligation on whoever you left them with.

I think you'll find that "Finders keepers, losers weepers" is a playground rhyme, not a legal principle.

Firstly, leaving something somewhere is likely to impose a duty of care on whoever you left it with - this is an obligation on their part. And it doesn't given them the right to do what they want with it.

adouglasmhor

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I think you'll find that "Finders keepers, losers weepers" is a playground rhyme, not a legal principle.

Firstly, leaving something somewhere is likely to impose a duty of care on whoever you left it with - this is an obligation on their part. And it doesn't given them the right to do what they want with it.

They didn't leave it with someone, they left it behind and have had ample time to collect it and failed to do so as arranged. You are talking rot. And I never said someone found it. Nice to know that if I leave my car up on bricks on your driveway you are going to look after it for 6 years though, PM me your address :rotfl:

ThumbRemote

adouglasmhor wrote: »

They didn't leave it with someone, they left it behind and have had ample time to collect it and failed to do so as arranged. You are talking rot. And I never said someone found it. Nice to know that if I leave my car up on bricks on your driveway you are going to look after it for 6 years though, PM me your address :rotfl:

You seem to have no idea what you're talking about, and equally little clue what I've actually written.

Whoever the goods are left with must take reasonable care f them. They must give the owner chance to collect. If they follow due process, and the goods still remain they can sell them but the owner is entitled to the proceeds. This is exactly what is said in the advice guide link I posted originally.

You do realise that the same applies to cars? Look at all these results for some examples: http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&newwindow=1&q=car+parked+on+private+driveway

Tenyearstogo

What I would say is can the ex prove that their things are have been left there?

Prothet_of_Doom

I would send by recorded delivery, a letter stating that,

a) as of this date* your car insurance will no longer be valid.

(She will need to contact the insurance company, to explain that they can no longer take the direct debit from the account, and without an account number to use they will want to cancel the insurance. She will be liable for the administration of trying to collect otherwise.)

b) That his belongings are available at a convient time of day, to be collected, by prior arrangement by contacting her mother, and if he has not collected them by that date*, they will be distributed to charity shops of her choice.

*28 days from posting the letter.

bod1467

Rebecca_Crossley wrote: »

Hi there!

Click that :spam: button people. She's already PPR'd.