5 ms·

I’d be curious what jurisdiction that is true. In my jurisdiction in the US it doesn’t matter if someone purchased the stolen goods or not, the goods still bel

I’d be curious what jurisdiction that is true. In my jurisdiction in the US it doesn’t matter if someone purchased the stolen goods or not, the goods still belong to the owner. This is sometimes called the "nemo dat" rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_dat_quod_non_habet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_dat_quod_non_habet The person buying the stolen goods would need to file a claim against the thief to recover their money, but the goods still belong to the original owner. And this is how it should be, since it’s added reason not to buy goods you suspect are stolen. And yes, you should always try and work with the police first and foremost.

jorvi 2y ago
That is probably mostly a common law thing, and as the article notes > however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners > The person buying the stolen goods would need to file a claim against the thief to recover their money Generally as long as the purchase is made in good faith, you are wrong. It is the original owner that needs to file a claim against the thief. Obviously, what constitutes a sale in "good faith" is a rather imprecise science, although one steady element is the sales price: it needs to have been appropriate for the item. So for example a mint bicycle or antique coin should sell near sticker price.
- nsomaru 2y ago
  The key element for a bona fide sale at common law is the buyer’s absence of knowledge of the defective title of the seller. Not sure how US courts have interpreted this requirement but that’s the onus and I believe it rests on the third party buyer (to show absence of knowledge through evidence). In that case the claim is against the thief only.
- graemep 2y ago
  > in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners The next sentence is: > The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner. So you seem to be wrong there. The innocent buyer needs to file a claim against the thief, the original owner retails their title. It is explained in more detail later on.
  - jorvi 2y ago
    No, I know our legal system quite well. You are wrong. The reason for this is so that if you buy a bicycle at, say, a bicycle fair and for a reasonable price, you shouldn’t have to worry about it being yoinked from under you later on. Lawmakers have clarified this is choosing between two evils, there is no winning proposition here. So, in conclusion: the original owner needs to file the claim, not the third party.
    - hcurtiss 2y ago
      To the degree lawmakers have weighed in, as you say, can you point me to a citation protecting the subsequent purchaser? I don't practice in this area, but that is definitely not my understanding of the law.
      - liber8 2y ago
        This guy is wrong, which is why he isn't citing any legal authority. As anyone who has gone to law school will tell you, you can only acquire the title that the seller has. If seller stole the goods, he doesn't have any title, so he can't transfer title to a subsequent buyer. See, e.g. UCC § 2-403 There are exceptions when it comes to those who have voidable title (thieves do not have voidable title). There are also cases where courts have more or less created exceptions close to those OP has described. For example, if Best Buy receives some stolen merchandise and sells it to good faith purchasers, courts have held that the victim needs to pursue the thief/Best Buy, not the end purchaser. But generally, OP is wrong: if you buy a stolen bike at a flea market, you don't get title and the owner can get the bike back. Think of the policy implications if the rule was as OP claims. All thieves would have to do is immediately sell stolen goods and the owners could never get them back. That would be absurd.
        jorvi 2y ago
        > This guy is wrong, which is why he isn't citing any legal authority. You never asked. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005291/2024-05-01 https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005291/2024-05-01 article 83 onward > As anyone who has gone to law school will tell you Sounds like you wasted $300 000 just to be wrong :) > But generally, OP is wrong: if you buy a stolen bike at a flea market, you don't get title and the owner can get the bike back. I said bike fair, not flea market. I will reiterate: the sale needs to have been in good faith. All the conditions for that need to have been met.
ostacke 2y ago
Sweden is one such jurisdiction[1]. You can only retake what has been stolen from you if it is done shortly after the theft. [1] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sj%C3%A4lvt%C3%A4kt https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sj%C3%A4lvt%C3%A4kt
- randallsquared 2y ago
  ...as appropriate for a culture of Viking raids, one would suppose!
  - lazide 2y ago
    Possession truly is 9/10ths of the law in this case I guess?
randunel 2y ago
Another jurisdiction example would be Romania. Even if the thief themselves are in possession of the property you own, you can be charged with theft if you steal it back. The law clearly delimits possession from ownership.
easyThrowaway 2y ago
How would they even prove that if it's in the open? "Stolen? No idea, I've always had that bike, I just forgot where I left it last time. Went and got it back. By the way, here's the receipt."
Xmd5a 2y ago
This happened to me. I bought a pair of headphones (Nuraphones) on ebay, only to have them bricked by the company remotely. IIRC, they had a security hole on their payment page: they forgot to implement SCA (strong customer authentification, aka 2FA for payments). Had they done this, the liability would have shifted onto the bank/card issuer. For some reason they decided to go after the customers in vain resentment, were acquired and their product was discontinued. https://www.reddit.com/r/Nuraphone/comments/8iw3he/beware_only_buy_from_nuraphone/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Nuraphone/comments/8iw3he/beware_on...

jorvi 2y ago

That is probably mostly a common law thing, and as the article notes > however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners > The person buying the stolen goods would need to file a claim against the thief to recover their money Generally as long as the purchase is made in good faith, you are wrong. It is the original owner that needs to file a claim against the thief. Obviously, what constitutes a sale in "good faith" is a rather imprecise science, although one steady element is the sales price: it needs to have been appropriate for the item. So for example a mint bicycle or antique coin should sell near sticker price.

nsomaru 2y ago
The key element for a bona fide sale at common law is the buyer’s absence of knowledge of the defective title of the seller. Not sure how US courts have interpreted this requirement but that’s the onus and I believe it rests on the third party buyer (to show absence of knowledge through evidence). In that case the claim is against the thief only.
graemep 2y ago
> in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners The next sentence is: > The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner. So you seem to be wrong there. The innocent buyer needs to file a claim against the thief, the original owner retails their title. It is explained in more detail later on.
- jorvi 2y ago
  No, I know our legal system quite well. You are wrong. The reason for this is so that if you buy a bicycle at, say, a bicycle fair and for a reasonable price, you shouldn’t have to worry about it being yoinked from under you later on. Lawmakers have clarified this is choosing between two evils, there is no winning proposition here. So, in conclusion: the original owner needs to file the claim, not the third party.
  - hcurtiss 2y ago
    To the degree lawmakers have weighed in, as you say, can you point me to a citation protecting the subsequent purchaser? I don't practice in this area, but that is definitely not my understanding of the law.
    - liber8 2y ago
      This guy is wrong, which is why he isn't citing any legal authority. As anyone who has gone to law school will tell you, you can only acquire the title that the seller has. If seller stole the goods, he doesn't have any title, so he can't transfer title to a subsequent buyer. See, e.g. UCC § 2-403 There are exceptions when it comes to those who have voidable title (thieves do not have voidable title). There are also cases where courts have more or less created exceptions close to those OP has described. For example, if Best Buy receives some stolen merchandise and sells it to good faith purchasers, courts have held that the victim needs to pursue the thief/Best Buy, not the end purchaser. But generally, OP is wrong: if you buy a stolen bike at a flea market, you don't get title and the owner can get the bike back. Think of the policy implications if the rule was as OP claims. All thieves would have to do is immediately sell stolen goods and the owners could never get them back. That would be absurd.
      - jorvi 2y ago
        > This guy is wrong, which is why he isn't citing any legal authority. You never asked. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005291/2024-05-01 https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005291/2024-05-01 article 83 onward > As anyone who has gone to law school will tell you Sounds like you wasted $300 000 just to be wrong :) > But generally, OP is wrong: if you buy a stolen bike at a flea market, you don't get title and the owner can get the bike back. I said bike fair, not flea market. I will reiterate: the sale needs to have been in good faith. All the conditions for that need to have been met.

ostacke 2y ago

Sweden is one such jurisdiction[1]. You can only retake what has been stolen from you if it is done shortly after the theft. [1] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sj%C3%A4lvt%C3%A4kt https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sj%C3%A4lvt%C3%A4kt

randallsquared 2y ago
...as appropriate for a culture of Viking raids, one would suppose!
- lazide 2y ago
  Possession truly is 9/10ths of the law in this case I guess?

randunel 2y ago

Another jurisdiction example would be Romania. Even if the thief themselves are in possession of the property you own, you can be charged with theft if you steal it back. The law clearly delimits possession from ownership.

easyThrowaway 2y ago

How would they even prove that if it's in the open? "Stolen? No idea, I've always had that bike, I just forgot where I left it last time. Went and got it back. By the way, here's the receipt."

Xmd5a 2y ago

This happened to me. I bought a pair of headphones (Nuraphones) on ebay, only to have them bricked by the company remotely. IIRC, they had a security hole on their payment page: they forgot to implement SCA (strong customer authentification, aka 2FA for payments). Had they done this, the liability would have shifted onto the bank/card issuer. For some reason they decided to go after the customers in vain resentment, were acquired and their product was discontinued. https://www.reddit.com/r/Nuraphone/comments/8iw3he/beware_only_buy_from_nuraphone/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Nuraphone/comments/8iw3he/beware_on...