3 ms·
The problem is that the customers did not agree for their property to be locked away for an indeterminate amount of time, so it makes sense for the police to ga
by ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
The problem is that the customers did not agree for their property to be locked away for an indeterminate amount of time, so it makes sense for the police to gain entry and return customer owned bikes that are in for repair. Bankruptcy proceedings have no bearing on bikes that are not property of the former Van Moof (Van Poof), so what's the benefit in preventing customers regaining their own property?
- yourusername 3y ago>The problem is that the customers did not agree for their property to be locked away for an indeterminate amount of time, so it makes sense for the police to gain entry and return customer owned bikes that are in for repair. Things under repair being locked up until the curator determines what belong to who and if they owe money before it is returned after bankrupcy is standard practice under Dutch law. To the point that there are form letters available online to ask for your stuff back when a company has gone bankrupt.
- pixl97 3y ago>Bankruptcy proceedings have no bearing on bikes that are not property of the former Well, not really. Bankruptcy laws can widely differ around the world, but for example if something of yours is on my properly and I go bankrupt then the bank puts a lock around my property then you must put a motion into the bankruptcy court to lay claim to and retrieve your property. It's likely you would be charged with trespass by both the bank and the land owner if you attempted to claim it. Van Moof cannot even give you your property in most jurisdictions, the parties in the bankruptcy must agree that 'your' property actually belongs to you, and that the person going bankrupt is not committing some sort of fraud by giving away assets.