回複：這僅僅是學術探討，不是法律建議

謝謝您的回應.然而老貓想就三個方麵與您討論這個問題,希望您指教.
(A)有關對方(房東)是否有權Salvage"樓主東西的問題",您或許沒有注意到,老貓一開始就嘗試建立一個關係就是樓主是否有確實的標示這是其個人的東西,(在這個案件中,樓主並未有這樣做), 所以這是一個大問題,因為在"HALLWAY"堆置個人物品而未經業主容許,仍然是一種"trespass",因為對方是房東,(老貓假設對方也是業主),所以即使這是一個apartment,"hallway",屬於公用,但是業主仍然需要維護其通行的暢通,也就是說任何住客都不能在hallway上置放任何物品,否則這可能與當地的消防法規不合.同時做為房東,必須確實保障住客的安全,所以將物品移除,可以說是有理. (當然就此據為己有恐怕說不過去)

(B)有關物權的問題,相信您如果上過"Property Law"的課程,通常在第二週的課程就會講到有關"Ownership"的問題,一般教授都會用Finders Keepers",做為一個例子,(不知道您的教授是否討論過Amory v Delamirie 的案件),基本上一個重要的關鍵就在於樓主對於這幾個箱子能否建立"ownership",因為如果他能夠做到這一點,誠如您指出的,"whether a property is abandoned" , 但是如果樓主不能提出一個合理的證明這些物品是屬於他的,這就是老貓在上麵舉出這個案例的原因,因為對於物品是否能夠建立明確的ownership在法律案件上是非常重要的.您提到的"a car unlocked ..."的問題,這其中有一點與這個情況不同的是每一部車都有van number,所以很容易建立一個清楚的ownership.因為理論上任何車都應該在DMV有登記...
但是在這個案件中,除非樓主在box上有註明他的名字,否則一箱全新的玩具,您如何證明對方不是在超市門口檢到的...
所以這又回到了"Funders Keeps, Losers Weepers",的老問題上,所以樓主應該如何做呢?
(A)必須證明自己是合法的owner.
(B)必須明確告知對方(房東),這一箱東西並非是"abandoned".
事實上如果樓主能夠做到這兩點,應該不難經由法律程序把東西拿回來,

(C)您建議用"CONVERSION",來提出訴訟,但是相信您應該了解，
Absolute ownership是這個問題的關鍵,因為是intentional tort to personal property的訴訟,所以通常法律上會要求事主在事件發生時能夠建立"actual possession or an immediate right to possession at the time of the wrong."在這個案件中,如果我們認定hallway屬於公開的區域,那麼老貓以為樓主在建立這個關係上就會有問題.這個部份老貓很希望聽聽您的看法.謝謝您的指教.


最後給予您一個很好玩的東西,因為老貓在開始提及"Maritime Law"中有關Salvage Rights的問題,或許這個article您會有興趣

Finders Not Keepers


When a maritime salvage company discovered the wreck of a Spanish ship that disappeared off the Virginia coast nearly 200 years ago, it thought it had hit the jackpot. Along with its hundreds of passengers, the ship had on board many millions of dollars in coins and precious metals. Not long after the company had begun to explore and mine the site, it was sued by Spanish officials who claimed that Spain still owned the ship because it was never technically abandoned. A federal judge agreed with Spain.

The basis for the court's ruling is even older than the shipwreck. The judge interpreted the 1763 treaty that ended the French and Indian War as making Spain the rightful owner of Spanish ships that sank off the United States coast after 1763, while defeating any Spanish claims to ships that went down before that date.

The salvage company did win the rights to a second ship that had sunk in the same area in 1750. The partial victory will do little for the company's bottom line, however. The second ship was not known to have been carrying any treasure

所有跟帖： 

• 回複：回複：這僅僅是學術探討，不是法律建議 -sjy0627- ♂ (1529 bytes) () 07/24/2008 postreply 19:14:32