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

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

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.


Sounds entirely plausible.

The right of ownership.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

The right of ownership.

You don't infringe someone's right of ownership by finding (or losing) something. So still not tort.

unholyangel

JReacher1 wrote: »

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.

I already explained why I linked them - to show the relevance of the limitation period I quoted and that ownership does not pass with possession, legally it would still belong to the person who lost it.


Statute barred does not prevent a claim being brought - it only ensures it won't be legally enforceable.

http://www.mills-reeve.com/limitation-act/

A limitation defence does not arise until it is pleaded by a defendant so a claimant can issue a claim, knowing that it appears time barred, to see if a limitation defence is pleaded, and then decide whether to apply to the court to disapply the limitation period.

http://www.pinsentmasons.com/PDF/Limitation.pdf

If a claim is brought out of time, the defendant will be
able to plead the defence of limitation and the claimant
will have the burden of proving that the cause of action
arose within the relevant statutory period.

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

You don't infringe someone's right of ownership by finding (or losing) something. So still not tort.

You do when you treat it as your own

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

You do when you treat it as your own

If you find something and treat it as your own then that is theft by finding. (So neither tort or what we are discussing.)

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

If you find something and treat it as your own then that is theft by finding. (So neither tort or what we are discussing.)

You can't have theft without dishonest appropriation of property with the intent to permanently deprive. We're speaking about circumstances where theres no criminal liability, just civil liability (or a civil wrong if you prefer).

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

You can't have theft without dishonest appropriation of property with the intent to permanently deprive.

Agreed, obviously.

We're speaking about circumstances where theres no criminal liability, just civil liability (or a civil wrong if you prefer).

A civil liability and a civil wrong are not the same. Yes, finding property creates a civil liability but it does not involve a civil wrong. A civil wrong involves an infringement of a person's rights.

Your legal knowledge is very flawed if you think because there is a civil liability there has been a civil wrong.

(If I borrow £10 I create a civil liability but there is no civil wrong - no infringement of a person's rights. Similarly finding property creates a civil liability but does not involve a civil wrong. Neither involve tort.)

unholyangel

As I said on another thread, the way I respond depends on the way I'm approached.

Like for example when I substantiate what I post with links and the poster(s) in question respond along the lines of "no you're wrong, despite the links you've provided and despite that I've not substantiated my own post with anything other than my say so".

Yes if you borrow £10 there is civil liability but no civil wrong - because its wouldn't be an action founded on tort it would be founded on contract.

You have a duty of care to your neighbour. Who is your neighbour is whoever should be in reasonable contemplation at the time as being affected by your act/omission. You are in breach of that duty if you fail to meet the standard of a reasonable person. As the links I provided earlier state, whats reasonable depends on the amount found and cirumstances (just as finding a pen most people wouldnt bother tracing the owner but a phone they would). £1 and most people would keep it. But more substantial amounts, the reasonable person would hand those in/try and trace the owner. Therefore if you dont take reasonable steps, you've failed to meet the standard of a reasonable person and are in breach of duty of care. Thus action founded on tort.

As I said initially, it really is no different to involuntary bailee - theres a duty of care to look after the items and take reasonable steps to trace its owner.

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

A
Like for example when I substantiate what I post with links and the poster(s) in question respond along the lines of "no you're wrong, despite the links you've provided and despite that I've not substantiated my own post with anything other than my say so".
.

There is no need to get defensive.

All I would like is a link from you that proves your statement that if you find money, hand it in to the police and then receive it back 6 weeks later then the person that lost it has 6 years to claim the money off you.

I genuinely don't think you have provided a link that proves this and I have asked you politely on numerous occasions.

[Deleted User]

How has this thread reached 72 responses? The Op already had very detailed advice and responses on page one of this thread, yet here we are on page #4!:eek: