Finders' Rights

Question 1

Armory v Delamire

Answer 1

Facts: P found jewel and brought to D goldsmith. D apprentice took out stones and offered to buy off P. P refused, D returned it without stones.

Held: P wins, D must pay for value of ring plus jewel of highest quality. P had right to ring against all but the proper owner.

Question 2

Parker v British Airways

Answer 2

Facts: P found bracelet in lounge, gave to lounge staff D with his contact info to return to him if the rightful owner could’nt be found. D couldn’t find owner, and then sold it and kept proceeds.

Principle: An occupier of a building has rights superior to those of a finder over chattels on or in, but not attached to, that building if, but only if, before the chattel is found, he has manifested an intention to exercise control over the building and the things which may be on or in it.

Held: P wins. D had no sufficient manifestation of any intention to exercise control over lost property before it was found such as would give D a right superior to P or indeed any right over the bracelet. One end of spectrum for manifestation would be a bank vault, the other a public park. While D had instructions for employees to return, this was specifically communicated to employees (agents), and likely just instructions on how to perform your job.

Question 3

Deaderick v Oulds

Answer 3

Facts: D logger found unmarked log floating in river. D employees track log and recover it on P’s property. P claims as occupier he is entitle to the log unless D can prove he is true owner.
Held: D wins. D found log and took possession, even before log drifted on P’s land, D therefore has superior right of possession. Prior finding of D sufficient not just against P, but against anyone except true owner.
Reasons:
- P has to show they have superior right of possession, they did not at all
- Aside: it’s essential that object is found by finder and thus lost by owner, not simply placed there by carelessness/forgetfulness
o Not the case here. If log was intentionally placed, P would be quasi-bailee for the owner, and could then hold superior right

Question 4

Keron v Cashman

Answer 4

Facts: Boys playing outside, one boy Crawford finds stocking. Other boy Cashman takes it and starts hitting people with it. They all take turns hitting, then money flies out of stocking. Crawford claims he found it, rest claim should be split equally.

Held: Money found in common possession of all boys. Some intention or state of mind with reference to the lost property is an essential element to constitute a legal “finder” of such property. Lost property is the cash, not the stocking, so the finder of the money was different than finder of the cash. In the course of organizing a game which involved roles for each of the boys, they exclusively set the agenda for the sock + had sufficient manifest intent to possess between the five of them.

Reasons:

• stocking which contained the money and other articles was, at the time the stocking burst open, in actual use by all the defendants as a plaything, and for the purpose of play only.
• This money was therefore the lost property, and the first intention, idea, or “state of mind,” arose on this discovery.