Ryder Memorandum

.docx

School

Toronto Metropolitan University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

401

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CoachOxide16318

TO: Ms Flyte FROM: 00505522 RE: Charlie Ryder (Possession rights of a finder v occupier) DATE: 16 October 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS In October of 2006, 14 year old Charlie Ryder found an envelope wedged between his seat and the window of the No. 1 Brideshead bus, operated by Arcadia Transit (AT). Upon inspecting its contents, he discovered five $1000.00 bills and a note signed Rex Mottram. Charlie dismounted the bus at his stop and went home, notifying his mother of his find upon his arrival. AT bus tickets, transit passes, and transfers did not indicate what should be done with lost items. AT’s website was listed on the back of the transfer, and when the site was navigated to, a message stating the following was listed: “...the Lost and Found Office receives and stores all items found on Arcadia Transit vehicles and property. All articles found are held for sixty days before being sent to auction for disposal”. Additionally, AT’s internal policy dealing with lost items was listed. Each driver is required to check their vehicle once or twice during a shift to collect lost items. Charlie and his mother turned the money over to AT, identified where it was found and requested that the money be returned to them if the owner could not be found. AT contacted Rex Mottram who refused to acknowledge any involvement, nor did he express interest in the cash. After 60 days AT deposited the $5000.00 in their bank account. Each party is claiming a superior right of possession. ISSUES The main issue in this case under the law of finders is whether Charlie Ryder, as finder, has a better claim to the $5000.00 than AT, as occupier. This can be broken down to two sub- issues as follows: 1

1. Whether Charlie Ryder acquired finders rights when he discovered the $5000.00 on the bus and took the money into his possession. 2. Whether AT had prior possession of the $5000.00 as an occupier of the bus prior to Charlie finding it. BRIEF ANSWER Under the law of finders, it is likely that Charlie Ryder has a better claim to the $5000.00: 1. It is probable that Charlie acquired the rights of finder because he took the money into his care and control when he discovered it and fulfilled his obligations as finder by attempting to re-acquaint the money with its rightful owner. 2. It is not probable that AT can show prior possession of the $5000 as occupier because the intent to control and possess all property was not made clear and accessible to all AT users. ANALYSIS Issue 1: Rights of a Finder- whether Charlie Ryder acquired finders rights when he discovered the $5000.00 on the bus and took the money into his possession. The Law: Since the 18 th Century, the law has recognized that a finder acquires rights of possession superior to all others except the rightful owner. This precedent was established in Armory v. Delamirie (1722), 93 E.R. 664, S.M. 69 (K.B.) [ Armory ], and has become the foundation of finder’s rights. In Bridges v. Hawkesworth (1851), 21 L.J.Q.B., S.M. 70 (D.C.) [ Bridges ], the plaintiff found £55 on the floor of the defendant’s shop, who kept it on request of the plaintiff for the purpose of advertising for the rightful owner. After 3 years, the plaintiff returned seeking the £55, offering to pay the advertising costs, and to indemnify the defendant against any claims of the rightful owner. The issue was whether the place in which the money was found made any 2

legal difference. The plaintiff argued the precedent found in Armory, that the money was dropped accidentally, and that he did not intend to waive his title when giving the £55 to the defendant. The defendant argued that because the money was found in his shop, he had possession. The court held that the answer to the issue was no, and found for the plaintiff, awarding £50 and reversing the lower courts decision. The court reasoned that the £55 was “never in the custody of the defendant, nor within the protection of his house before they were found, as they would have been had they been intentionally deposited there” [ Bridges ]. This case contributes to the law of possession by showing that a finder’s rights of possession are second only to the actual owner, even when that article is found on another’s property who did not have care or custody of it. In Parker v British Airways Board, [1982] 2 W.L.R. 503, S.M. 71 (C.A.) [ Parker ], the plaintiff (Parker), discovered a gold bracelet on the floor of a passenger lounge. He handed it to a British Airways employee with instructions that it was to be returned to him if the rightful owner could not be found. The bracelet went unclaimed and British Airways sold it for £850 and retained the proceeds. One of the issues in this case was whether Parker took the bracelet into his control as finder. The court held that Parker did in fact acquire finders rights, stating: “...the plaintiff in taking the bracelet into his care and control acquired rights of possession except against the true owner and in handing it to an official of the defendants he acted honestly and in discharge of his obligations as finder” [ Parker at 71]. The court outlined three rights and obligations of the finder that are applicable to this issue. First, the court reasoned that the finder acquires rights to a chattel when it has been abandoned or lost, and he takes it into his care and control. Second, a finder acquires the right to keep a chattel against all but the rightful owner or one who can assert a prior right to keep the chattel. This right must have existed at the time of 3

the finder took the chattel into his care and control. Lastly, the court reasoned that a finder has an obligation to re-acquaint a lost article with its rightful owner [ Parker at 76]. Synthesis of the Law: Finders rights are firmly grounded in the case law found in Armory. The finder acquires rights of possession superior to all others except the rightful owner. This precedent has been built on over time to affirm that a finder’s rights of possession are second only to the actual owner, even when that article is found on another’s property who did not have care or custody of it [ Bridges ]. Furthermore, a finder acquires rights when he takes a lost item into his care and control and assumes an obligation to re-acquaint a lost article with its rightful owner [ Parker ]. Application of Law to the Facts: It is probable that Charlie acquired the rights of finder because he took the money into his care and control when he discovered it on the AT bus. When the instant case is compared to the facts in Armory it is clear that an argument can be made to support the position that Charlie has acquired property rights second only to the rightful owner, as he is the one who found it. Charlie assumed the rights of finder, and acted honestly and properly in discharging his obligation as finder as required by the case law found in Parker. First, he acquired property rights when he took the money into his care and control after it had so clearly been lost. Second, he acquired the right to keep a chattel against all but the rightful owner or one who can assert a prior right to keep the chattel. Charlie acted properly in discharging his obligation as finder by giving the money to AT in an attempt to find the rightful owner. It should also be noted that Charlie did not waive title to the $5000.00 when he handed the money over as he stated that he wished he money to be returned to him if the owner could not be found. This was successfully argued in Bridges. 4

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help