Legal Liability

Legal Liability Land Law

Legal Liability

Part A

Referring to the scenario If the true owner of the property discovered is unidentifiable or unable to be found then the person In lawful possession of the land is entitled to the item that was found in the land or attached to it. This is even the case where the landowner was unaware of the object before it was discovered and not ever showed any intention to command the land . The enclosures asserted in Waverley BC v Fletcher 1996, the three causes why pieces found below the surface of the land should be treated differently from those found on the property. Firstly, An object in land should be treated as an integral part of that land against all but the true owner so if the finder of the piece is to remove it from the land they would be doing so without a license or consent and thus become a trespasser. Secondly, Removal of an object in or adhered to land would normally engage interference with the land and may damage it. Finally, it is improbable that the factual proprietor of the object in the ground would be there to claim the property, where as if the piece was discovered on the dirt it is likely to have been recently lost and likely the factual proprietor may come back to find it. Examples of items discovered that have undertaken court proceedings in the past encompass; Rings discovered in grime at the bottom of a pool (seen in the case of South Staffordshire Water Co v Sharman [1896]), A prehistoric boat discovered 6 feet under the exterior (noted in Elwes v Brigg Gas Company (1886) ) and A gold brooch discovered 9 inches below the exterior of a public reserve (basis of the case of Waverley BC v Fletcher [1996]) Items found on top of the land itself The finder of property generally has the right to any object which has been lost. Aright which is enforceable against every person except for the true proprietor of the property. The owner of the land where the object was found will only take main concern over the finder where the landowner had conveyed his aim to control the land and anything discovered on it former to the breakthrough of the lost property. The enclosures in the case of Parker clarified that if the factual proprietor where ever to arrive forward he/she would have the overall best claim to the lost property. The referee asserted the following principles. The finder of a lost object will have no rights over it except it has been abandoned or lost and then taken into the command of the person who found it. However, the finder of the lost object will have very restricted rights over the house if he/she takes control of the object with deceitful aim or while trespassing on the land. The finder of the lost property does not have any unconditional ownership over the things but does gain ...