Treasure Act 1996 - Essay Sample

General Rule

The case of Christine pertains to Section 1 of the Treasure Act 1996. Various legal aspects can be identified in this scenario. In the case of Armory v Delamirie, the judge ruled that a person who finds an object should acquire the ownership title against any other person except the rightful owner. Similarly, Bridges v Hawkesworth later supported the ruling of this case where the plaintiff successfully claimed the ownership of money he had found. The other relevant law is the lack of any effort to find the real owner, which is regarded as dishonesty . In the case of Moffat v Kazana, the judge ruled that the real owner has the right of ownership against any subsequent owner. As such, the first attempt should be an attempt to find the right owner since it is only if the real owner is not found that the finder can acquire rightful ownership. Furthermore, in the case between Hibbert v McKiernan, the court ruled that a finder who is dishonest loses the legal title of ownership to the owner of the land. However, in the case-law of Parker v British Airways Board, the court ruled that parker had a higher right of ownership than the owner of land since he was honest, as shown in his attempt to find the valid owner. Lastly, the other law that pertains to this scenario is the right of ownership of an object that a person finds in the line of duty. In the case of Water Co v Sharman, the court ruled that if an employee finds an item during his/her duty and take care of it, he will be done on behalf of the employer.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Application

Applying the act, which states that the one who finds an item has the right of ownership in the absence of the true owner more than anybody else. However, the other consideration will be put in place. Since Christine did not put any effort into finding the right owner, the law will consider her as being dishonest. Although, the rules mention that those who find items have a better claim to the item than any subsequent owner but the true owner, it can be contended that the right of Christine to retain the watch will also be complicated by the fact that she was an employee who found it on her line of duty. If she had found the gold watch outside of her workplace, Christine would have had a stronger claim than Mandy.

Conclusion

In this case, Christine does not have the right to retain the watch she had found due to two things. To start with, she shows some dishonesty since she failed to report what she had found in an attempt to find the rightful owner. Since the law of lost and found items seem not to favor dishonest finder, this would mean that Christine has lost the right of ownership of the watch. Besides, even if Christine had reported what she had found, her right to retain the watch will still not be possible since she was on duty, and hence the employer had a higher claim of the watch since Christine had found it in line with responsibility.

Bernadette and Harry

Legal Issue

The legal issue, in this case, is whether Harry has a higher right of ownership than Bernadette. The case study of Harry, who found a gold Brooch in Bernadette garden barrier in the flowers pertains to the items found on the service of the land

General Rule

The Treasure Act 1996 defines treasure as any object with at least 10% of precious metal, not a coin, and must have been at least 300 years old. Historically owners of the land will enjoy ownership privilege of any substance found in the soil. In Elwes v Brigg Gas Company, the judge ruled that the owner of the property has the right of ownership of any substance found under the soil and not the person who excavates it. This was further confirmed in the Parker v British Airways case, where Donaldson concluded that the owner of a property has the superior right over that of an individual who found it irrespective of whether the owner was aware or not. The other case law that applies to this scenario is the act that elaborates between items found on the surface and those found in the soil. This can be found in the above discussed cased ruling by the court of appeal. In this case, Parker v. British Airway, the court of appeal, used a different principle. The court of appeal ruled that British airways had no better claim of the bracelet found by a passage since they had not exercised sufficient control over the lodge. Besides, the supreme court judge also refused the idea of assimilation of the things that are found in the land and on the surface of the ground due to various aspects.

Application

Regarding the definition of treasure as any object with at least 10% of precious metal, not a coin, and must have been at least 300 years old. In the scenario, though the jewellery was golden, there is no evidence to show that its meets 300 years, as stated in the act. As such the brooch that Hurry found does not qualify to be a treasure rather an object abandoned on the surface. In harry scenario, the act of items found on the surface of the land will be used. According to this act, the owner of the property has no greater possession right of the item found than the finder. The implication is that, Harry has the legal right to possess the jewelry he found in case of the absence of the true owner.

If Harry had not reported his finding to Bernadette and if he had not taken the jewellery to the police station, then the situation would have been different. This will violate the second principle formulated by Donaldson LJ on the course of trespassing or dishonest intent. According to this principle, a finder will have less claim for an object found in or on the surface if he/she illegally trespasses another person's premise. However, in the scenario of Harry, who was delivering a parcel, it cannot be counted as trespassing. Nevertheless, if he had not disclosed the finding to Bernadette, the owner of the premise, this would have counted as a dishonest intent since it will show no consideration to find the right owner. In such a case, Donaldson stated that a finder should not benefit from his wrong. The same situation would apply if he did not report the finding to the police. This would pertain to the public policy consideration on objects found on the land adopted from Parker. This act gives only an honest finder the right to become a substitute owner rather than the landowner but in case of a dishonest finder, the land owner would benefit instead. The implication is that, if Harry had not reported the case to the landowner and the police, he would have lost the right to substitute the real owner.

Conclusion

Hurry found the brooch when delivering a parcel, and hence it cannot be termed as trespass. He also reported the case to the police, and therefore there is no evidence of dishonesty. The jewelry was found on the surface, and hence it gives the finder right of possession. As such, he legally holds the title of ownership as a substitute owner.

Arthur

Legal Issue

The legal issue, in this case, is whether Arthur has the legal right to retain the silver coins excavated from the rented premise. The case scenario of Arthur pertains to the rule of a substance found in the soil.

Rule

The coins that Arthur found qualify to be a treasure as defined in Treasure Act 1996. The first legal issue in this scenario is the right of trespassing finder. The best-case law on this incident is Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher. In this case, the judge ruled that activities when in legal matters cannot be termed as trespassing. This was supported by Ellis v Loftus Iron which clarified that trespassing is any unauthorised stepping in a plaintiff land even if Is by just placing part of foot the foot.

The other legal aspect in this case is the right of a finder in items found in the land. In the case of Elwes v. Brigg Gas, the court ruled that items found under the soil belonged to the landowner and not the finder. Unlike items found on the ground, the court of appeal clarified that items found in the ground are different since they are attached to the land, extraction will involve interference of the property, and there will be no likelihood to find the real owner.

The other act that pertains to this case is the right of ownership of items found inland by a leaseholder granted by the freeholder. The case law City of London Corporation v Appleyard was used to elaborate who between the real owner and leaseholder has the right to items found in the soil. In this case, the court identified three things to be considered. One of them is the degree of the annexation of the object to the land. The second is the moment an item was found, and the last is a relevant provision between the owner and leaseholder and the true owner in their contract.

Application

To start with, Arthur does not own the land; he excavated the coins as he had only hired a cottage. As such, it should begin by examining whether he has the right to the coins in the land owned by Bernice. Arthur has no higher right in possession of the coins than the owner of the land. Anything that is attached to the land is entitled to the owner of the land. The coins were excavated and hence this rule apply. However, if the contract gives Arthur more control of the land, he would have a claim to the coins. The aspect of the annexation of where the gold was found could give or deny Arthur the right of the coins he found. If the coins were extracted very far from the cottage hired by Arthur, then he would have no right for the coins.

He also lacks ownership right on coins found in the neighbor's land since he violated the principle of trespassing. Transposing is a crime on its own. As such, the coins extracted in the neighbour land belong to the owner. Besides, by just not reporting the finding to the owner and the authority, Arthur shows some aspect of dishonesty and this deny him any right of possession of the coins legally.

Conclusion

Arthur has no right of the coins found in the land over the landowner. He also has no right to coins found through trespassing. He also fails to inform the owner and the authority, and this further contradicts his legal possession right.

Bibliography

Armory v Delamirie [1722] EWHC KB J94

Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJ QB 75

City of London Corporation v Appleyard [1963] 1 WLR 982, [1963] 2 All ER 834

Co v Sharman [1896] 2 QB 44

Elwes v Brigg Gas co (1886) 33 ChDEllis v loftus iron company (1874) L.R. 10 C. & P.10

Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142,

Moffat v Kazana [1969] 2 QB 152

Parker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004

Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756

Online Journals

Clark E, "Notes on the Roman and Early English Law of Treasure Trove"( 1886) Archaeological Journal, 43(1), pp.350-357. <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00081527> [Accessed on 22th May 2020]

Cookson N, "Treasure Trove: Dumb Enchantment or New Law?" (1992) 66 Antiquity 399 < https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00081527> [Accessed on 22nd May 2020]