Forum menu
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! ^^^
😀