Hacker News Reader

Comment by jorvi | Hacker News Reader

That is probably mostly a common law thing, and as the article notes

> however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners

> The person buying the stolen goods would need to file a claim against the thief to recover their money

Generally as long as the purchase is made in good faith, you are wrong. It is the original owner that needs to file a claim against the thief.

Obviously, what constitutes a sale in "good faith" is a rather imprecise science, although one steady element is the sales price: it needs to have been appropriate for the item. So for example a mint bicycle or antique coin should sell near sticker price.

View on HN

> in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners

The next sentence is:

> The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner.

So you seem to be wrong there. The innocent buyer needs to file a claim against the thief, the original owner retails their title. It is explained in more detail later on.

No, I know our legal system quite well. You are wrong.

The reason for this is so that if you buy a bicycle at, say, a bicycle fair and for a reasonable price, you shouldn’t have to worry about it being yoinked from under you later on.

Lawmakers have clarified this is choosing between two evils, there is no winning proposition here.

So, in conclusion: the original owner needs to file the claim, not the third party.

To the degree lawmakers have weighed in, as you say, can you point me to a citation protecting the subsequent purchaser? I don't practice in this area, but that is definitely not my understanding of the law.

This guy is wrong, which is why he isn't citing any legal authority.

As anyone who has gone to law school will tell you, you can only acquire the title that the seller has. If seller stole the goods, he doesn't have any title, so he can't transfer title to a subsequent buyer. See, e.g. UCC § 2-403

There are exceptions when it comes to those who have voidable title (thieves do not have voidable title).

There are also cases where courts have more or less created exceptions close to those OP has described. For example, if Best Buy receives some stolen merchandise and sells it to good faith purchasers, courts have held that the victim needs to pursue the thief/Best Buy, not the end purchaser.

But generally, OP is wrong: if you buy a stolen bike at a flea market, you don't get title and the owner can get the bike back. Think of the policy implications if the rule was as OP claims. All thieves would have to do is immediately sell stolen goods and the owners could never get them back. That would be absurd.

> This guy is wrong, which is why he isn't citing any legal authority.

You never asked.

https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005291/2024-05-01 article 83 onward

> As anyone who has gone to law school will tell you

Sounds like you wasted $300 000 just to be wrong :)

> But generally, OP is wrong: if you buy a stolen bike at a flea market, you don't get title and the owner can get the bike back.

I said bike fair, not flea market.

I will reiterate: the sale needs to have been in good faith. All the conditions for that need to have been met.

OP is just claiming that there exists juristrictions where his claim holds. IANALE (I am not a lawyer EVERYWHERE), so I can't really say that he's wrong. But you seem quite certain. Why?

"o, I know our legal system quite well. You are wrong"

"Our" legal system? Do you mean all common law countries or a particular one?

The commenter appears to have been referring to a specific law in the netherlands without stating this.

The key element for a bona fide sale at common law is the buyer’s absence of knowledge of the defective title of the seller.

Not sure how US courts have interpreted this requirement but that’s the onus and I believe it rests on the third party buyer (to show absence of knowledge through evidence).

In that case the claim is against the thief only.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com