Found a big chunk of cash in a cashpoint...

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

You've already had links, its not our fault you don't understand the information contained in them.

None of your links say that if you lose money in the street you have six years to claim the money back from the finder. The links all talk about people finding things and not telling the police. The OP has contacted the bank and is reporting this to the police so none of these examples are what happened here.

You should just admit that you made a mistake and posted something that wasn't true for this scenario. We can then all move on

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

What do you think the action would be founded on if not tort? Contract? Deed? Statute?

I don't know what it would be founded on, but tort does not sound correct.

Tort is, in layman's terms, "a civil wrong" and finding lost property (assuming that's what it is) and then failing to find the owner (having taken all reasonable steps) does not sound like it involves any "civil wrong". So it does not sound like tort.

To be honest I would not be surprised if, in some circumstances, the owner could in theory come forward after any length of time (e.g. in the case of lost works of art found many years ago but where, through no fault of the finder, the owner was only identified recently). However I don't profess to know the answer, unlike you.

unholyangel

JReacher1 wrote: »

None of your links say that if you lose money in the street you have six years to claim the money back from the finder. The links all talk about people finding things and not telling the police. The OP has contacted the bank and is reporting this to the police so none of these examples are what happened here.

You should just admit that you made a mistake and posted something that wasn't true for this scenario. We can then all move on

All of those links (except one) say that the person who lost the money has legal ownership of it. The one that doesn't say it is the link to the limitation act.

They also show that you can be charged with theft if you take the money in such circumstances and dont take reasonable steps to find the owner.

Why could you be charged with theft but the owner not have a valid claim to have it back when theft is dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another? Yeah its theft because you took something that doesnt belong to you but its okay buddy, you dont need to give it back, you can keep it because its yours?

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

All of those links (except one) say that the person who lost the money has legal ownership of it. The one that doesn't say it is the link to the limitation act.

They also show that you can be charged with theft if you take the money in such circumstances and dont take reasonable steps to find the owner.

Why could you be charged with theft but the owner not have a valid claim to have it back when theft is dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another? Yeah its theft because you took something that doesnt belong to you but its okay buddy, you dont need to give it back, you can keep it because its yours?

You're being deliberately obtuse....

The OP has said he is going to report this money to the police and he has also told the bank what has happened.

Please explain what law will find the OP guilty of theft if after six weeks the police hand the money back to him as nobody claimed it?

Again though you aren't providing anything that backs up your claim that the owner of the money has six years to try and recover this from the OP.

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

I don't know what it would be founded on, but tort does not sound correct.

Tort is, in layman's terms, "a civil wrong" and finding lost property (assuming that's what it is) and then failing to find the owner (having taken all reasonable steps) does not sound like it involves any "civil wrong". So it does not sound like tort.

To be honest I would not be surprised if, in some circumstances, the owner could in theory come forward after any length of time (e.g. in the case of lost works of art found many years ago but where, through no fault of the finder, the owner was only identified recently). However I don't profess to know the answer, unlike you.

NOUN

Law
A wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to legal liability:

And btw, you can bring a claim for just about anything. Even it being statute barred technically wouldn't stop a claim being raised - just you'd be able to immediately get it dismissed unless the judge perhaps disagreed that it was statute barred.

Zandoni

esuhl wrote: »

That's just silly.



I'm sure he has a high opinion of himself, but policemen are very rarely experts in law.

I never said he had a high opinion of himself.

unholyangel

JReacher1 wrote: »

You're being deliberately obtuse....

The OP has said he is going to report this money to the police and he has also told the bank what has happened.

Please explain what law will find the OP guilty of theft if after six weeks the police hand the money back to him as nobody claimed it?

Again though you aren't providing anything that backs up your claim that the owner of the money has six years to try and recover this from the OP.

And where have I ever said the OP would be guilty of theft? Never mind after handing it to the police? For one thing intention to permanently deprive wouldn't be satisfied because of that never mind dishonesty.

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

And where have I ever said the OP would be guilty of theft? Never mind after handing it to the police? For one thing intention to permanently deprive wouldn't be satisfied because of that never mind dishonesty.

All your links are of people who have found money and then been accused of theft. Why post them if you aren't linking these to the OP's example? It's just wasting everybodies time.

I see in your last post you are now saying that the person who lost the money can now chase it indefinitely :wall:

Although at least you say it will "probably" be dismissed by the judge.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

NOUN

Law
A wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to legal liability:

I assume you mean the definition of "tort".

How does finding (or indeed losing) something involve a wrongful act or an infringement of a right?

Answer it doesn't. In other words if we use the definition of tort that you have given then we must conclude your assertion that the matter concerns tort is wrong.

And btw, you can bring a claim for just about anything. Even it being statute barred technically wouldn't stop a claim being raised - just you'd be able to immediately get it dismissed unless the judge perhaps disagreed that it was statute barred.

Sounds entirely plausible.

esuhl

Zandoni wrote: »

I never said he had a high opinion of himself.

I never said you did.