You are here: DataLex » FinderKB

Finder's Cases

Run consultation | Check Fact Cross References | Check Fact Translations



PERSON the finder
PERSON the non-finder

GOAL RULE the finder wins PROVIDES
DETERMINE the finder wins

RULE trespasser rule PROVIDES
IF the finder is a trespasser THEN the finder does not win

EXAMPLE Armory v Delamirie  [1722] EWHC KB J94 PROVIDES
    the finder wins ONLY IF
        the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was not attached AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was not hidden AND
        there was not an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Bridges v Hawkesworth  (1851) 21 LJQB 75 PROVIDES
    the finder wins ONLY IF
        the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was not attached AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was not hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Elwes v Brigg Gas  (1886) 33 Ch D 562 PROVIDES
    the finder does not win ONLY IF
        the finder was the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was attached AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Hannah v Peel  [1945] KB 509 PROVIDES
    the finder wins ONLY IF
        the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was not attached AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Corporation of London v Yorkwin  [1963] 1 WLR 982 PROVIDES
    the finder does not win ONLY IF
        the finder was the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was attached AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Moffatt v Kazana  [1969] 2 QB 152 PROVIDES
    the finder does not win ONLY IF
        the finder was the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was not attached AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the chattel AND
        there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE South Staffordshire Water Co v Sharman  [1896] 2 QB 44 PROVIDES
    the finder does not win ONLY IF
        the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was attached AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Yorkwin v Appleyard  [1963] 1 WLR 982 PROVIDES
    the finder does not win ONLY IF
        the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was attached AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding AustLII Communities? Send feedback