4 ms·

In general the rule is Caveat Emptor - or buyer beware. It is up to the buyer of the goods to ensure that the seller is the legitimate owner of the property bei

In general the rule is Caveat Emptor - or buyer beware. It is up to the buyer of the goods to ensure that the seller is the legitimate owner of the property being sold. A thief cannot convey good title. Your hypothetical Craig's lister would be in possession of stolen goods. In fact, having photos of the person improperly in possession of your property and not making any effort to identify that person could be perceived as being complicit in the arrangement. (However IANAL...)

westicle 15y ago
Not trying to shoot you down, as despite your IANAL disclaimer the general reasoning is sound, but: You are conflating two distinct legal principles: Caveat Emptor, the principle that the BUYER of property takes the risk of defects in that property (except in the case of fraud/misrepresentation on the part of the SELLER); and A thief cannot convey good title, which is actually a fallacy. If you honestly purchase goods from a thief, for market value, without knowing that the goods are stolen, your interest in those goods actually trumps those of the original owner. Counter-intuitive huh? The original owner has recourse only against the thief, as you are effectively an innocent party to the transaction. Caveat emptor protects the seller against a careless purchase followed by buyer's remorse. Merely possessing goods which are stolen is not a crime in any jurisdiction i'm aware of (and for good reason), this offence almost always implies a mental element of knowledge or at least suspicion as to the source of the goods.
- VBprogrammer 15y ago
  It is certainly the case in the UK that a stolen car remains the property of the original owner even when purchased by someone who has no knowledge of the theft. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/2753701/Motorists-unwittingly-buy-stolen-cars.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/2753701/Motorists-u... My understanding was that the due diligence one is expected to conduct under caveat emptor would include ensuring the buyer had the legal title of the goods to be purchased, but this might be a regional variation or I could just be wrong.

westicle 15y ago

Not trying to shoot you down, as despite your IANAL disclaimer the general reasoning is sound, but: You are conflating two distinct legal principles: Caveat Emptor, the principle that the BUYER of property takes the risk of defects in that property (except in the case of fraud/misrepresentation on the part of the SELLER); and A thief cannot convey good title, which is actually a fallacy. If you honestly purchase goods from a thief, for market value, without knowing that the goods are stolen, your interest in those goods actually trumps those of the original owner. Counter-intuitive huh? The original owner has recourse only against the thief, as you are effectively an innocent party to the transaction. Caveat emptor protects the seller against a careless purchase followed by buyer's remorse. Merely possessing goods which are stolen is not a crime in any jurisdiction i'm aware of (and for good reason), this offence almost always implies a mental element of knowledge or at least suspicion as to the source of the goods.

VBprogrammer 15y ago
It is certainly the case in the UK that a stolen car remains the property of the original owner even when purchased by someone who has no knowledge of the theft. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/2753701/Motorists-unwittingly-buy-stolen-cars.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/2753701/Motorists-u... My understanding was that the due diligence one is expected to conduct under caveat emptor would include ensuring the buyer had the legal title of the goods to be purchased, but this might be a regional variation or I could just be wrong.