Finder's Keepers; Loser's Weepers (not quite)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Be real rare to find a ring with a full name. Found one once that said "Aunt Bea". Uncle ARA melted that one:lol:
 
As I said, "you would both hold joint title over the property, subject to (1) the true owner and possibly (2) the landowner (depending on the state you live in)." It's not really about a defense, it's about who has proper title over the object. If you both find it, then you have joint title. I suppose the only defense would be that you found it first, and the other person was not involved in the finding. If you claimed that your friend was simply a 3rd party, rather than a joint finder (haha) then you would have better title over your friend.
 
As I said, "you would both hold joint title over the property, subject to (1) the true owner and possibly (2) the landowner (depending on the state you live in)." It's not really about a defense, it's about who has proper title over the object. If you both find it, then you have joint title. I suppose the only defense would be that you found it first, and the other person was not involved in the finding. If you claimed that your friend was simply a 3rd party, rather than a joint finder (haha) then you would have better title over your friend.


I'm actually learning as we discuss so feel free to ask questions.
"The friend asks to see the ring, but the metal detector says, "No way. This ring is mine now, finder's keepers; losers weepers."

What would be a proper defense to counter an argument by the friend that She/He were part owner of the ring since it was a joint venture as for as searching for possible lost items?

I don't think you answered my question as stated.
 
I'm actually learning as we discuss so feel free to ask questions.
"The friend asks to see the ring, but the metal detector says, "No way. This ring is mine now, finder's keepers; losers weepers."

What would be a proper defense to counter an argument by the friend that She/He were part owner of the ring since it was a joint venture as for as searching for possible lost items?

I don't think you answered my question as stated.

I know I met a guy about three years ago who fixed class rings with a hammer. Told me when they are flat, you don't have problems. new class rings you can send in to places like Balfour. They keep records for 5 years due to insurance claims. Another question is if a person winds up with two class rings what do you do?:lol:
 
Kemper! We are not going to allow you to turn this into your personal issue!!

When are you guys just going to ban this troll?? May i direct to his current avatar.. smh. It can't be fun moderating (Babysitting at this point) everything a 57 y/o man posts .. or Maybe it is :shrug:
I am looking forward to discussing this (made up) scenario with you.

Debating?
No. My argument would be as stated. My argument could be relative to the person that found the ring as well as the person claiming to be the original owner. My argument has no indications it would be "over" but rather in conjunction with.

Yes you can both "find" the item. If an agreement were made between two searchers ,either verbally or written, that all items discovered on said outing were to be considered jointly owned until such time said items were divided between both parties in an agreeable fashion.

My question to you is still as stated and was seeking a proper defense.

I don't think you answered my question as stated.

You never fail to amaze me.. Soo if you go out and hunt with a friend and have this nonsense agreement you made up in your head and your friend found a ring and claimed ownership of it even after the agreed split "as stated" in "said" nonsensical agreement.. You would what, take him to court over it? and vise versa?? Could you ever imagine seeing anything like this happening?? And i love all this sudden law talk out of you on "said" thread.. :D :no: Cant wait for you to start acting like a dog again:roll:.. I think that after 1100 posts of pure vomit even that dog would figure out how to use the quote feature, or better yet "in conjuction with" :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom