Theories on private property
Occupation theory: Occupation/possession justifies legal protection
Labor theory: Moral right if acquired via labor
Contract theory: “Private” property results of contracts b/w people
Natural rights theory: “Natural Law” dictates recognition of private prop.
Social utility theory: Law should promote max fulfillment of human needs
Marx/Engles: “means of production” moved to the state
Communism – now only China, Cuba, North Korea
Right to possess, right ot use, right to exclude, right to transfer
The more rights, the more “ownership” interest in it
Theory behind property rights is that w/ them, people will work together to maximize the utilization of the land
Exclusive rights: Allow for transfer – allows 2 people to pick which can use the land more beneficially
Judicial remedies for protection of property
Ejectment: eject an owner or occupier from property – common in 17th century
Trover: damages awarded, usually in the value of the property damaged
Replevin: return the goods to the original owner
Detinue: same as replevin only there is an option to pay damages instead of return property
Trespass also allowed for damage recovery – detinue fell into disuse
Most of these common law practices have been abolished, but many forms of them are still available in one civil action
Private Property and Communal Property
Native Americans, churches, corporate entities, not-for-profit entities
But, individual ownership is the norm
Have the right to transfer ownership either during life or in death
True problems only really exist at the extremities
Law of imminent domain – gov’t can condemn property and take it from you, but there must be just compensation for it
Trespass on the case
Action to recover damages that is not a direct harm but rather from a later consequence
Pierson v. Post
Law of wild animals/uncontrollable items: must have control over the item to claim possession over it
Constructive possession – control or dominion over an object w/o actual possession to it
Policy holding – otherwise people would claim they were chasing and that was good enough – control is a necessary req’t of possessing a wild thing
Benjamin v. Linder Aviation
Court has found that finders (typically) are the owners of property above all but the true owner – more on that later
Can’t trespass to find things
Employee finds something, usually belongs to the employer (they’re the agent of the employer)
Abandoned: owner no longer wants to possess it
Finder possesses it – similar to wild animals
Lost: owner unintentionally and involuntarily parts with its possession
Finder owns over all but true owner
Mislaid: Voluntarily puts property in certain place — then overlooks/forgets where it is
Finder holds no ownership rights at all, belongs to premises owner
Keeps people from “finding” things not on their land – gives actual owners legal backing to go look for items they have misplaced
Treasure trove: coins or currency concealed by the owner
If A steals property, B can’t come in and steal the property b/c A still has a better claim to it than B does
Courts typically try to protect the “better” possessor if there is no true owner
Ownership to lost/mislaid property varies with the situation
Finders have more of a claim if it is a public place, etc
Lose your purse in a restaurant, you have r
lment (hotels, restaurants, etc.), MA can be “given” w/o verbal discussion
If you leave your coat at a coat-check, there is a bailment there – you are assuming you’ll get your coat back, coat-check assumes risk
If there is a sign posted, that sometimes can eliminate liability
Constructive bailment – bailment that arises when the law imposes an obligation on a possessor of personal property to return the property to its rightful owner
If somebody forgets a purse at a restaurant – people wouldn’t want them to throw it away (benefit to customer), restaurant wants people to come back again (benefit to restaurant)
Contents w/in the purse come w/in the scope – is it reasonable for the purse to have $10K? Can they prove it was in there?
Allen v. Hyatt Regency – Nashville Hotel
If there is limited access, parking attendant on duty, owners are liable
Park-and-lock arrangements are not the same
Common carriers
As long as there is control, there is a bailment
Exculpatory agreements
Hotel has a “up to $100” limit on their coat-check, but it is only printed on the back of the ticket, hotels are many times held liable
However, moving closer to that not being the case
Involuntary bailments
If they took control of the property, they would be held liable
If he misdelivers the property, but did so reasonably, they would not be held liable
