Well, dunno about prove, but I don’t think anyone doubted it was mine. But the important part was this bit about ‘good faith’.

sorry oldgit i don’t know enough about implied agency or the facts of your case to advise you .

I do however know enough about the bike scenario “nemo dat quad non habet” is the rule about stolen goods being sold . You cannot give what you have not got, so a thief cannot give good title to a seller, so if your bike is stolen and sold on it is still your bike in law. The police would not be looking at the civil law which covers ownership of goods but the criminal which deals with whether or not the purchaser is dishonest and naughty so the good faith defence works to avoid criminal sanction not to give him the stolen bike.

pedants please note i am avoiding market overt the HP position plus factors as they are not relevant .

They spoke to him and were convinced that he had bought it in good faith, so it was his bike. [b]he shouldn’t be arrested for receiving stolen goods.[/b]

FTFY.

I don’t know enough about law to be sure, but common sense (yes yes, I know) would dictate that it can only be “his bike” legally if the seller was legally entitled to sell it in the first place? Surely?

Otherwise, I could rock on up to someone, say “that Mercedes outside? Give me the keys, it’s mine now, I’ve just bought it in good faith from a bloke in the pub.”

I could rock on up to someone, say “that Mercedes outside? Give me the keys, it’s mine now, I’ve just bought it in good faith from a bloke in the pub.”

Yeah, sort of. But i guess with a car there are all the usual documents. However, for any other scenario, you’d have to convince the police or someone that it was in good faith.

I suppose I could have gone to court with it, but i couldn’t prove it was mine either. It had been missing for a couple of years

What they said up there. That bike is still yours Charlie Mungus. Fair enough not doing the bloke who bought it, but wrong to say it was now his just because he had bought it in good faith. Unless he was disputing it was the one nicked from you, and you couldn’t prove it was, in which case they would be on a bit of a sticky wicket if they took it upon themselves to just hand it over to you.

I think the logic of it is that the bike belongs to the bloke who bought it. But this puts them onto the guy who sold it, who then has to make good to me the loss of the bike. (I think)

“I think the logic of it is that the bike belongs to the bloke who bought it. But this puts them onto the guy who sold it, who then has to make good to me the loss of the bike. (I think) “

NO the bike belongs to you it does not become the thief’s bike when he steals it, so it is not his to sell so he cannot pass ownership on to the purchaser no mater what good faith the purchaser had so it is still your bike. You get it back. The purchaser takes up his loss with the thief if he can.

You cannot give what you have not got, so a thief cannot give good title to a seller, so if your bike is stolen and sold on it is still your bike in law.

Years ago, a mate bought a car in good faith blah blah … replaced the lump and had it tuned … then 6 months later had a visit from the plod saying “Sorry son, you’re in possession of a stolen vehicle … we’re impounding it for collection.”

Needless to say he was well out of pocket and properly gutted.

NO the bike belongs to you it does not become the thief’s bike when he steals it, so it is not his to sell so he cannot pass ownership on to the purchaser no mater what good faith the purchaser had so it is still your bike. You get it back. The purchaser takes up his loss with the thief if he can.

well, that’s not the way it was explained to me back then. Having said that, I didn’t lose £98K out of it so…

Latin maxim-tastic.

V. basic concepot of law – only an owner can pass title(expecting some limited circumstances)

CharlieFungus FAIL

@ Oldgit – Looks like you’ve had your thread stolen too! ^^^

😀