Natalie says: " I choose Parker as my favourite case for three reasons. In 1971 the Law Reform Committee reported that it was by no means clear who had the better claim to lost property when the protagonists were the finder and the occupier of the premises where the property was found. The following additional cases were cited in argument: Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty. Thus one who "finds" a lost chattel in the sense of becoming aware of its presence, but who does no more, is not a "finder" for this purpose and does not, as such, acquire any rights. 75andSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. In a dispute of this nature there are two quite separate problems. In the present case I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing so special in the place and no other evidence to indicate that the defendants, on whom is the burden of proof, in any way demonstrated that they possessed the intention to exercise exclusive control over lost property or that the permission to enter as a member of the travelling public, albeit having purchased the special privilege of the executive lounge, was upon the terms that the commonly understood maxim finders keepers would not apply. (3d)546. I also agree that such an intention would probably be manifest in a private house or in a room to which access is very strictly controlled. Whatever the reason, he gave the bracelet to an anonymous British Airways official instead of to the police. We therefore have both the right and the duty to extend and adapt the common law in the light of established principles and the current needs of the community. He considered that Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. Pratt C.J's ruling is, however, only a general proposition which requires definition. FINDERS DOCUMENT.docx - FINDERS Good to say X may argue They must and do claim on the basis that they had rights in relation to the bracelet immediately before Mr Parker found it and that these rights are superior to Mr Parker's. The common law right asserted by Mr Parker has been recognised for centuries. The following judgments were read. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim "Finders keepers." As the true owner has never come forward, it is a case of finders keepers.. It is accepted on both sides that for the defendants to succeed it must be shown that they had possession of the bracelet at the time when the plaintiff found it and took it into his possession.
Dora Adventure Games, Ainsley Earhardt Father, Whos The Least Popular Skz Member, Articles P