About that Cuban boy, Elian Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (4334)	5/12/2000 8:52:00 AM
From: lawdog	Read Replies (2) of 9127

kholt and X, saw this and thought I might clarify. Person B is only person with a legally enforceable claim to the vase. The second hand shop never had any rights to transfer to A because it was stolen from A. You can generally not transfer more property rights in a something than you had. This common law rule has been codified in the Uniform Commercial Code. It makes sense, no? <<Person A buys a vase at a second hand shop in complete innocence. Turns out the vase was stolen, but person A had no way of knowing that, and acting in complete innocence bought the vase. Person B originally owned the vase. Both people really have a right to the vase. No they don't, the innocent buyer has been cheated also.>> Is there no point at which you just throw up your hands and give up? Are you indefatigable or just a glutton for punishment? <g> I'm getting exhausted just watching you. Karen

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next