PROPERTY HEEKIN 2012
Property: legal relationship between people (humans, corp) and things (things affixed to land or moveable things)
Legal Rationale: sources of law that serve as basis (cases, statutes, etc)
Policy Rationale: sources of law that advance the well being of the community; what will help them for the future
Cases: Pierson v Post
– Pursuit w/reasonable chance of capture (Post) is not enough to for possession; must kill or capture (Pierson)
i) Possession gives right to ownership
ii) Possession: Rule of capture (gained by reducing property to dominion/control);
iii) Property rights in wild animals=only through physical possession (1st)
– Public Property: possession is required, pursuit not sufficient. EXCEPTION: Keeble=pursuit may be sufficient if interruption is just for disrupting pursuer’s action; malicious interference with enterprise is protected
– Private Property: one who owns real property also owns all things in property (resources, animals); even if owner is not aware, he is still in control (constructive possession)
iv) Legal Rationale? possessor must deprive animal of liberty by killing or mortally wounding; MAJORITY thinks you must kill, wound. DISSENT says must exercise reasonable distance, probability of capture.
v) Policy Rationale: MAJORITY=rule of capture would allow for easier time determining who will win/lose in the future; DISSENT=get rid of foxes to preserve order, rule of capture doesn’t work.
Ghen v Rich: ownership shown through custom
– Ghen killed whale but found by Ellis: Ghen still owner cuz he reduced whale to dominion/control by taking away liberty by shooting it with harpoon.
– Custom: since shooting/retrieving whales has been done here for long time, custom prevails. Problem: whalers didn’t care about problems arising with other parties; Externality: ppl don’t understand how acts will affect others.
– First in time: first person to take possession owns it
– Constructive Possession: ppl have possession of things on/above/below property, even when not aware. Having control over property without physically controlling it at all times (ex. You own a car but person with key can take physical possession at anytime); not an actual possession but assumed possession; its there to protect our stuff while we are not there…we still own it (efficiency for world)
– Relativity of Title: title stands at one time cuz things can come up that will change it; title is not absolute (ex. If you go bankrupt, you lose title to your home)
– i) a person can have a relatively better title or right to possession than another, while simultaneously having a right inferior to yet another person; prior possession always wins (ex. If I steal something, then original owner has better right to title BUT if someone steals that thing from me, I have better right to title cuz only one that would trump me would be original owner); actual possession trumps constructive possession
– Ownership of property is relative to what happens b4 and after
Keeble v Hickeringill: Motive
– Negligence: p. says ducks would have been mine but d. indirectly damages
– Capturing these ducks was livelihood: d. disrupted it so liable (business motive); courts WILL PROTECT against malicious interference with trade/business
– Since d. came onto private property, he intruded on something that is not his. P has right to use property for profit/pleasure so d. did unlawful act=must pay damages
– Courts support enterprise: if done as a job, it means A LOT more than for pleasure/sport
– Capturing ducks in his own pond was not unlawful; d interfering was. he did this with the purpose of disrupting profit because he was involved in the same trade and wanted p to suffer so that he can claim all the ducks for himself and prosper. Motive: intimidation vs. economic purposes (competition=yes, coercion=no)
– If you look at case from Pierson v post POV: p. never reduced ducks to own control; only had prospect=never had real possession.
FACTORS THAT DISTINGUISH THE CASES: private property (owning the land means you own anything on it); Motive: business (Keeble) vs. sport(Pierson)
Rule of Creation- (creating something can create property rights; “1st in time”)
Law Surrounding Creation=balance. Create new things (incentivize them) AND protect competitiveness (for efficiency, cost-saving, etc)
Legal Remedies: $$ damages (Pierson, Keeble)
Equitable Remedies: non-legal remedy (fairness, justice, right thing to do)
AP News v INS News
– AP sues INS for piracy (theft of property)
– Is news property? The business of news is, not the news itself. Things that happen in the world are common property but GATHERING (style, time/effort, $$) of it is where property rights come in; the way in which news is captured and interpreted
– Unfair business trade: taking advantage of a competitor by unlawful means=property rights infringement
– If there is property right, does it get lost after it goes public? INS can’t take AP’s news and sell it as their own (Misappropriation): actionable offense
– Representing another’s product as your own is violation; this doesn’t help advance! NEWS=quasi property
– News revolves around Research/Development so others can’t just free ride; no one would be putting in work then!
– In relation to PIERSON: you can reduce news to your control but what you do after capture matters for property rights/possession.
– This case vs. Keeble: Similarities= both 1st pursuers prevailed, courts sympathetic to business/enterprise. Differences= keeble thwarted biz, AP was still able to make $$
Cheney Bros (d) v Doris Silk (p) (copying vs. stealing)
– P sues for copying design; copied design but put own label on it=ok!; p has no legal right to pursue d.
– Pattern: copyright doesn’t apply cuz it wasn’t an original idea (worked off of an existing/common one) so tried to use common-law/precedence
– Finds in favor of d….imitation is legal form of competition; copying is legal but selling goods as someone else is not (no brand names/logos); Cheney=no misrep. (vs. Smith v Chanel: invoked name of Chanel but said “same as”, not “the same”=ok!
– Property is only limited to chattels that embody his invention; if he borrowed his idea from someone before, you can copy (unpatented work). He has to be Original inventor to not be able to cop
ns it into police and they give it D when no one claims; D refuses to return cuz said found on his property
– Finder vs locus in quo (owner of property): cuz of constructive possession, D has more rights since brooch was found on his property (owns all things attached). He has a higher expectation in ownership
– Bailment: hands over some property to a person w/expectation that it will be returned in good care (ex. Valet service, dry cleaners?)
– Finder vs bailee: in “Armoree”, D (goldsmith) has legal duty to return the jewel cuz he was given it just to check out its value w/expectation of it being returned to P
– P wins cuz D never had prior possession; never showed intent to possess
Bridges v Hawkesworth ($$ dropped on floor in shop; P gives to D but owner never comes)
– Finder vs Shop Owner
– P wins cuz:
i) it was lost (unintentionally parted with),
ii) found in a public place (store)
iii) shop owner wasn’t aware of notes=not a bailee (not expecting a return of property) so no constructive possession claim
– Major Peel & Shop owner similarities: both didn’t know it was on their prop (never had prior possession) so finder wins, residence vs shop (private vs public)
Southstaforshire v Sharman (pool boy finds ring is owners pool)
– Finder vs Locus in quo (property owner)
– Property owner wins cuz:
i) Constructive possession: owner didn’t know it was there but still has rights to anything attached to his property. PRIVATE PROPERTY!
ii) Employer/employee: employer prevails cuz pool boy was his agent
iii) Public vs private property: on private prop, owner has high expectation of keeping the item, he owns all things there
iv) Comparing these facts to Hannah v Peel where owner SHOULD have prevailed: constructive possession cuz Peel is owner and had high expectation; soldiers could be employees of gov’t and gov’t could own house so D can win; since private property, D could win cuz owns
McAvoy v Medina (lost vs mislaid)
– Lost goes to finder; mislaid goes to property owner; Mislaid=property deliberately placed and unintentionally forgotten Lost=unintentionally parted with
– Shop Owner prevails because it was mislaid. Mislaid always goes to prop owner
– Difference between the 2 is manner it was left in: where it was left (floor=dropped, table=accidently left)
– Its easy to manipulate the law cuz we can move between lost/mislaid easily (if found on table, we can juss drop it on the floor)
