Unfortunately the Police are correct. The 'true owner' has the best right to possession of the item as against the world - see Armory v Delamire or Parker v British Airways. The owner in this case retained ownership if the money was not paid to him (or her). Quite unfortunate that the honest third party in all this suffered most.
QLD Gumtree & Facebook marketplace scam issue
- Thread starter Gotboost
- Start date
Care to enlighten me in the best cases to illustrate the situation? They both adequately address the point I was trying to make which was that the original owner (the owner of the jewel in Armory or the bracelet in Parker) is akin to the original owner in this situation. In both Armory and Parker it was held that the original owner retained ultimate ownership and this is still valid law today.
This is a classic nemo dat v BFPFVWN situation.
Hmm, this goes way back to 2nd year law and probably something in your distant past
Here the seller has a voidable title, but the title has not been yet been avoided at the time of sale to the OP, so, as long as the OP buys in good faith and without notice of the seller defect in title, the OP becomes the legal title owner. (Also see s29 of the Sale of Goods Act 1958 (Vic) or s25 Sale of Goods Act 1896 - (QLD) Sale under voidable title)
Police are not correct and this is why you do not believe everything the police tell you about the law.
If magistrates' are handing goods back there should be other factors in play (ie no good faith, knew it fell of the back of the truck), otherwise it should be a simple matter for the OP to retain the goods.
Hmm, this goes way back to 2nd year law and probably something in your distant past
Here the seller has a voidable title, but the title has not been yet been avoided at the time of sale to the OP, so, as long as the OP buys in good faith and without notice of the seller defect in title, the OP becomes the legal title owner. (Also see s29 of the Sale of Goods Act 1958 (Vic) or s25 Sale of Goods Act 1896 - (QLD) Sale under voidable title)
Police are not correct and this is why you do not believe everything the police tell you about the law.
If magistrates' are handing goods back there should be other factors in play (ie no good faith, knew it fell of the back of the truck), otherwise it should be a simple matter for the OP to retain the goods.
And as for police seizing the evidence - yes they can, but in this situation it becomes an abuse of their power depriving a legal title holder of their goods.
The title holder if asked can make it available for court, or even better provide a witness statement supporting the police attempts to prosecute the non-paying 2nd person.
The title holder if asked can make it available for court, or even better provide a witness statement supporting the police attempts to prosecute the non-paying 2nd person.
This is a classic nemo dat v BFPFVWN situation.
Hmm, this goes way back to 2nd year law and probably something in your distant past
Here the seller has a voidable title, but the title has not been yet been avoided at the time of sale to the OP, so, as long as the OP buys in good faith and without notice of the seller defect in title, the OP becomes the legal title owner. (Also see s29 of the Sale of Goods Act 1958 (Vic) or s25 SALE OF GOODS ACT 1896 - (QLD) Sale under voidable title)
Police are not correct and this is why you do not believe everything the police tell you about the law.
If magistrates' are handing goods back there should be other factors in play (ie no good faith, knew it fell of the back of the truck), otherwise it should be a simple matter for the OP to retain the goods.
Far distant past indeed, but I still disagree that Armory or Parker are not applicable. I agree that nemo dat applies, but it has nothing to do with ultimate ownership (in the sense that I was referring to above). The OP had best title to the laptop as against the world aside from the true owner (Armory). Ownership was not passed between the 'fraudster' and the OP because the 'fraudster' did not have the title to pass (nemo dat). Perhaps a better question, if the OP was not a 'finder', notwithstanding he 'found it' on Facebook Marketplace, what was the OP?
Probably isn't.
Determine ownership of property is out of scope of the Police - we refer it to a court/tribunal and they decide. From there my role ends.
I'd still like to know why the buyer searched Gumtree for another seller then contacted him after the purchase... That's weird to me. It's not something people normally do. Where there is smoke there is fire. My guess is the OP suspected something was off.
Similar threads
