How Dare You?!
You can type in caps as much as you want, but you are wrong (in Britain as well as every US state, I might add--you should ask for a refund on those two years of law school). There is one, exactly one, and only one circumstance under which you something you find becomes yours to sell in this short of a time. That circumstance is that the person who lost it tells you it is yours.
Selling something you do not own is the tort of conversion, and/or the crime of theft by conversion.
Period. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
Firstly, I find your post arrogant and your style hurtful. “Period”?! You are not a lawyer, are you? I don't think that I have deserved this kind of a personal abuse and I demand an apology.
Secondly, I would question your competence in law. You appear to use some pretentious legal terminology without giving the impression that you know what you are talking about yourself. Others picked up on this too. As you claim, you know how the law stands in the US and in the UK. Surprise us! Shine! Please, provide us with details of the origin of your fantastic legal knowledge that might destroy our doubts about your version of UK and US law! Personally, after a degree, I don't even know what the law is in Scotland. Do barristers and solicitors in England and Wales know? No. But you do, apparently. Good for you!
What is the authority on your claim that "There is one, exactly one, and only one circumstance under which you something you find becomes yours to sell in this short of a time." It sounds like it came out of the mouth of Lord Denning, but of course, he is not an authority there. But now that you question my knowledge of English law (without actually distinguishing between English law and Scottish, for example), why don’t you just ‘solve’ the following issues:
You have no mens rea. Given the facts, there is not much chance that you’d reach as far as to consider Ghosh. Have you ever heard of it? Probably not, otherwise, you wouldn’t have posted that pile of insult and nuisance. The Theft Act 1968 defines theft as dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention to permanently depriving the other of it. You might want to check out s. 6(1) and 6(2). Also, as it is typical with many exam problems, some issues with dishonesty arise. Tort?! Enlighten us! You failed in criminal law that doesn't even require higher education.
Tell us about the US law, you legal expert! Some case law would also be nice on top of the relevant legislation... I never claimed that I knew the exact state of the law in the US in general or in that state specifically. In fact, I expressed that I don't know US law and I only spent two years (accelerated as I had a former BA and MA in management) studying English Law here, in the UK. (Technically, it was called Jurisdiction, but I have doubts, whether you'd understand why that is.) I admit that I never joined the Bar and I don't want to.
Thirdly, let's cut the crap! The guy called Apple and they denied that the prototype was theirs. So far, nobody else came forward as the rightful owner. Apple only came out AFTER Gizmodo made maximum use of their alleged $5000 investment. The story grew, so they just had to react. Even if you want to go down the 'conversion' and 'tort' route, I think you would also have to consider terms, such as 'defences', like 'estoppel' and asking back for it. But only after that you went through all that alleged 'conversion' route, that is.
But if you still blame Gizmodo (or the finder) with felony, than act and report it! Let's see, if anybody takes you seriously! Perhaps the guy will be arrested for not taking the prototype to the local Police Station or ‘Lost & Found’ (or whatever they call them in the US)? Most of us seriously doubt it, but hey, you must be right!
Given the circumstances, it can be pretty difficult to use tort to get anybody prosecuted, but I'm sure you can do it with your confidence, arrogance and your disregard to take the fact into consideration that EVEN if you were right on the point of law (which I doubt), it takes a lot more to start a procedure. Obviously, you haven't been laughed at by police officers about pity crimes.
In many ways, studying law and not becoming a lawyer is a waste of time. I might remember a lot about tort and criminal law, but what I also remember is that there are hardly any points in law that are so simple as you put it. By the way, you don't have to repeat it over again and again. If I can read, I can read the first word just as much as the third one.
If you just remember one thing from this post, that one thing should be this:
Don't you ever reply to me like that! Put me on your ignore list, I don't care, but without proving that I am wrong, don't you dare questioning my competence in that manner! If you cannot cite proper authority, don't tell me what to do! If you want to treat people like crap, keep that in your house and off this forum! I will do the same.
As I said, I demand an apology!
