[photo-3d] Re: Grant's RBT (a legal pespective)

[JNorman805@xxxxxxx]

Hi, everyone:
      As a lawyer, I thought I'd weigh in on the discussion concerning Grant 
Campos' loss of his RBT.  Please note, I'm a lawyer in New Jersey, not 
Seattle, and the following is merely for edification, not legal advice.  
      First, as a general rule, negotiation without the credible threat of 
litigation usually amounts to little more than supplication and appeals to 
honor that the other side may not have.  So, the first thing Grant should do 
is make it clear that he intends to sue.  Moreover, in my experience, the 
only way to make that intent clear is to go ahead and actually do it.  
Considering the amount at stake, Small Claims Court is probably the better 
way to go.
      Now, the question is: what's the basis for the lawsuit?  
      There are at least three possible sources of law that are relevant in 
this sitaution: 
      First, there's the "common law" (that's law that has evolved over time 
as a result of court decisions, rather than legislation) of "trover."  
("Trover" comes from the Old French verb "to find.")  The starting point in 
the law of trover is that the finder of a lost or mislaid object "has good 
title against all the world save the true owner."  So far, it's looking good 
for Grant.
      Second, there's the law of bailments.  A "bailment" is created when you 
entrust property to the care of someone else, who then has the obligation to 
safeguard it for you.  Usually, it comes up in the context of leaving an 
appliance at a repair shop, and the repair shop gives it away to the wrong 
customer.  But a bailment can be created by accident.  Grant's argument would 
be that he created a bailment when he handed a box of unrelated stuff to Good 
Will Industries, and the box contained an obviously unrelated item.  It would 
help if the box had been characterized in a receipt that Grant should have 
gotten for tax purposes stating that he had donated a quantity of used 
clothing, or kitchen appliances or some specific category of things to which 
an RBT clearly does not belong.  To use the law of bailments, you'd have to 
name Good Will as a defendant in the suit.  (Good Will is the "bailee"; Grant 
is the "bailor".)  
      Finally, there's legislation.  Many states (and I don't know if 
Washington is among them) have statutes covering lost, mislaid, and abandoned 
property.  The research librarian at any large city library should be able to 
help Grant find the relevant statute, if there is one, in the "Revised Code 
of Washington Annotated".  The "annotated" refers to the compilation of case 
notes at the end of each statutory provision, which will indicate how courts 
have dealt with issues affected by that particular statutory provision in the 
past.  If there is such a statutory provision in Washington, Grant should see 
if any of the annotated cases are at all similar or analgous to his case, and 
be guided by their outcomes.  If the outcomes are favorable to Grant's 
position, he should be prepared to cite those cases in his argument before 
the Small Calims Court judge.
      In any event, it's my opinion that Grant should use the threat of 
litigation as a lever to force the purchaser of his camera into meaningful 
negotiation, and that he should be prepared to pay a reasonable reward to the 
purchaser in order to resolve the dispute.  What's reasonable?  That's up to 
Grant, of course, depending on how badly he wants his camera back.  I have a 
figure in mind, but I don't think it's useful to discuss such numbers 
publicly.
      
      A couple of sources for further edification:

      Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Volume 11, Page 521: "Ownership and 
Possession", by Cook (1937).

      Northwestern University Law Review, Volume 80, page 1221: "Wrongful 
Possession of Chattels" by Hemholz (1986).

      Hope this helps, and good luck to Grant.

      Jim Norman


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/