Ryder Memorandum
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Toronto Metropolitan University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
401
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
9
Uploaded by CoachOxide16318
TO:
Ms Flyte
FROM:
00505522
RE:
Charlie Ryder (Possession rights of a finder v occupier)
DATE:
16 October 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In October of 2006, 14 year old Charlie Ryder found an envelope wedged between his
seat and the window of the No. 1 Brideshead bus, operated by Arcadia Transit (AT).
Upon
inspecting its contents, he discovered five $1000.00 bills and a note signed Rex Mottram. Charlie
dismounted the bus at his stop and went home, notifying his mother of his find upon his arrival.
AT bus tickets, transit passes, and transfers did not indicate what should be done with lost items.
AT’s website was listed on the back of the transfer, and when the site was navigated to, a
message stating the following was listed: “...the Lost and Found Office receives and stores all
items found on Arcadia Transit vehicles and property. All articles found are held for sixty days
before being sent to auction for disposal”.
Additionally, AT’s internal policy dealing with lost
items was listed. Each driver is required to check their vehicle once or twice during a shift to
collect lost items. Charlie and his mother turned the money over to AT, identified where it was
found and requested that the money be returned to them if the owner could not be found. AT
contacted Rex Mottram who refused to acknowledge any involvement, nor did he express
interest in the cash.
After 60 days AT deposited the $5000.00 in their bank account. Each party is
claiming a superior right of possession.
ISSUES
The main issue in this case under the law of finders is whether Charlie Ryder, as finder,
has a better claim to the $5000.00 than AT, as occupier.
This can be broken down to two sub-
issues as follows:
1
1. Whether Charlie Ryder acquired finders rights when he discovered the $5000.00 on the
bus and took the money into his possession.
2. Whether AT had prior possession of the $5000.00 as an occupier of the bus prior to
Charlie finding it.
BRIEF ANSWER
Under the law of finders, it is likely that Charlie Ryder has a better claim to the $5000.00:
1. It is probable that Charlie acquired the rights of finder because he took the money into
his care and control when he discovered it and fulfilled his obligations as finder by
attempting to re-acquaint the money with its rightful owner.
2. It is not probable that AT can show prior possession of the $5000 as occupier because
the intent to control and possess all property was not made clear and accessible to all AT
users.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Rights of a Finder- whether Charlie Ryder acquired finders rights when he
discovered the $5000.00 on the bus and took the money into his possession.
The Law:
Since the 18
th
Century, the law has recognized that a finder acquires rights of possession
superior to all others except the rightful owner.
This precedent was established in
Armory v.
Delamirie
(1722), 93 E.R. 664, S.M. 69 (K.B.) [
Armory
], and has become the foundation of
finder’s rights. In
Bridges v. Hawkesworth
(1851), 21 L.J.Q.B., S.M. 70 (D.C.) [
Bridges
], the
plaintiff found £55 on the floor of the defendant’s shop, who kept it on request of the plaintiff for
the purpose of advertising for the rightful owner. After 3 years, the plaintiff returned seeking the
£55, offering to pay the advertising costs, and to indemnify the defendant against any claims of
the rightful owner. The issue was whether the place in which the money was found made any
2
legal difference. The plaintiff argued the precedent found in
Armory,
that the money was dropped
accidentally, and that he did not intend to waive his title when giving the £55 to the defendant.
The defendant argued that because the money was found in his shop, he had possession.
The
court held that the answer to the issue was no, and found for the plaintiff, awarding £50 and
reversing the lower courts decision. The court reasoned that the £55 was “never in the custody of
the defendant, nor within the protection of his house before they were found, as they would have
been had they been intentionally deposited there” [
Bridges
].
This case contributes to the law of possession by showing that a finder’s rights of
possession are second only to the actual owner, even when that article is found on another’s
property who did not have care or custody of it.
In
Parker v British Airways Board,
[1982] 2 W.L.R. 503, S.M. 71 (C.A.) [
Parker
], the
plaintiff (Parker), discovered a gold bracelet on the floor of a passenger lounge. He handed it to a
British Airways employee with instructions that it was to be returned to him if the rightful owner
could not be found.
The bracelet went unclaimed and British Airways sold it for £850 and
retained the proceeds. One of the issues in this case was whether Parker took the bracelet into his
control as finder. The court held that Parker did in fact acquire finders rights, stating: “...the
plaintiff in taking the bracelet into his care and control acquired rights of possession except
against the true owner and in handing it to an official of the defendants he acted honestly and in
discharge of his obligations as finder” [
Parker
at 71].
The court outlined three rights and
obligations of the finder that are applicable to this issue. First, the court reasoned that the finder
acquires rights to a chattel when it has been abandoned or lost, and he takes it into his care and
control.
Second, a finder acquires the right to keep a chattel against all but the rightful owner or
one who can assert a prior right to keep the chattel.
This right must have existed at the time of
3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
the finder took the chattel into his care and control. Lastly, the court reasoned that a finder has an
obligation to re-acquaint a lost article with its rightful owner
[
Parker
at 76].
Synthesis of the Law:
Finders rights are firmly grounded in the case law found in
Armory.
The finder acquires
rights of possession superior to all others except the rightful owner. This precedent has been built
on over time to affirm that a finder’s rights of possession are second only to the actual owner,
even when that article is found on another’s property who did not have care or custody of it
[
Bridges
]. Furthermore, a finder acquires rights when he takes a lost item into his care and
control and assumes an obligation to re-acquaint a lost article with its rightful owner
[
Parker
].
Application of Law to the Facts:
It is probable that Charlie acquired the rights of finder because he took the money into his
care and control when he discovered it on the AT bus.
When the instant case is compared to the
facts in
Armory
it is clear that an argument can be made to support the position that Charlie has
acquired property rights second only to the rightful owner, as he is the one who found it.
Charlie assumed the rights of finder, and acted honestly and properly in discharging his
obligation as finder as required by the case law found in
Parker.
First, he acquired property
rights when he took the money into his care and control after it had so clearly been lost.
Second,
he acquired the right to keep a chattel against all but the rightful owner or one who can assert a
prior right to keep the chattel.
Charlie acted properly in discharging his obligation as finder by
giving the money to AT in an attempt to find the rightful owner.
It should also be noted that
Charlie did not waive title to the $5000.00 when he handed the money over as he stated that he
wished he money to be returned to him if the owner could not be found. This was successfully
argued in
Bridges.
4
Charlie Ryder can demonstrate that he had control of the $5000.00 simply by the fact that
he took it into is care and control.
Animus possidendi was established when Charlie stated that
he wished the money to be returned to him should the rightful owner not be found.
AT could argue that Charlie Ryder did not act properly in fulfilling his obligation as
finder because he dismounted the bus at his stop rather than notifying the driver.
This could be
countered with an argument centering on the fact that he is a 14 year old boy who needed to seek
advice from his mother before acting, and that the obligation to re-acquaint the money with the
owner was satisfied at the next available opportunity.
Conclusion
Based on the aforementioned discussion of Charlie Ryders rights of possession as the
finder of the $5000.00, and given that he has satisfied the obligations of a finder
it is clear that a
strong argument can be made to answer the first issue in the affirmative -Charlie Ryder acquired
finders rights when he discovered the $5000.00 on the bus and took the money into his
possession. It is likely that the court will find AT’s position on this issue to be tenuous at best.
The
Armory
and
Bridges
cases have been used numerous times in deciding finders rights.
Although they are very old English Common law cases, they are persuasive on the Provincial
Court in Alberta.
Parker
should also be considered persuasive.
To determine who has the better
right of possession overall, the second issue will now be discussed.
Issue 2: Rights of an Occupier
-
whether AT had prior possession of the $5000.00 as an
occupier of the bus prior to Charlie finding it.
The Law:
Under Common law, the occupier of a building or chattel (such as a vehicle) has rights of
possession of lost articles under certain conditions. In
Bridges,
the occupier argued that because
the money was found in his shop, he had possession.
The Court held that the answer to the issue
5
in this case was no, reasoning that the £55 was “never in the custody of the defendant, nor within
the protection of his house before they were found, as they would have been had they been
intentionally deposited there” [
Bridges
]. Had the defendant been able to demonstrate care and
control the outcome could have been in his favour.
The rights and obligations of an occupier are described in
Parker
at 76.
To
paraphrase the rights and obligations applicable to the present case: An occupier of a chattel (AT
bus) has superior rights of possession over a finder if the occupier can demonstrate that they have
“manifested an intention to exercise control over the [chattel] and the things that may be upon it
or in it” [
Parker
at 76] Secondly, an occupier who manifests that intention and acquires rights
superior to the finder is obligated to take steps to ensure that lost items are found, and to re-unite
those lost items with their owner. The issues with respect to the occupier in
Parker
is whether
British Airways had control of the lounge and whether British Airways manifested its intention to
exercise control over the lounge and the property found on or in it. The Court held that the
answer was no, reasoning that British Airways had not manifested control of the lounge, had not
conducted regular searches of the premises for lost articles, and nothing was published or made
obvious to the users of the lounge that lost articles should become the property of the occupier.
In
Canada (Attorney General) v. Brock
(1993), 82 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1, S.M. 79 (C.A.), the Court
ruled that the two elements of control and animus possidendi must co-exist for an occupier to
claim possession rights over the rights of a finder. In this case, a large sum of money was found
by the police concealed in Brock’s car.
He denied ownership of the money until the next day.
The issue before the court was whether Brock’s ownership of the vehicle gave him a superior
claim of possession over the police who found it in the car. The court found for the City of West
Vancouver, holding that Brock did not have exclusive possession of the vehicle as he regularly
6
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
lent it to others. The court elaborated that on the day of the discovery of the money, Brock had
possession of the vehicle but not the money in it because he had neither control of it, nor a
manifest intention to control the money.
“On the facts of the present case these two elements are
missing...Brock did not purport to control the money in the vehicle nor did he in any way
indicate an intention to possess it” [
Brock
at para 53].
Synthesis of the Law:
Case law demonstrates that an occupier assumes a greater right of possession over a
finder if the occupier clearly has control and manifests an intention to control (animus
possidendi) all chattel found in or on the land or a building.
For purposes of interpretation,
building includes chattel such as a vehicle [
Parker
at 77]. When an occupier is successful in
assuming rights of possession of a lost chattel, the occupier assumes the obligation to re-unite the
chattel with the rightful owner.
Application of Law to the Facts:
On the second issue, it is likely that AT will argue that printing the website address on the
transfer, and listing the information with respect to lost articles and their internal policy dealing
with lost items was enough to manifest intent to control, and therefore is sufficient to prove their
claims of possession as occupier. This argument is likely to fail based on the following
discussion.
The two-part test of possession in
Parker
at 77 specifies that the two elements of control
and animus possidendi must both exist. To elaborate, in order for a claimant to succeed in
proving possession, that control must be manifest to the casual observer, and the claimant must
have custody of the property with the intent to exclude others from possessing it.
7
It is not probable that AT can show prior possession of the $5000 as occupier because the
intent to control all property was not made clear and accessible to all AT users.
Case law
specifies that the intent to control must be manifest.
This means that it must be clear and obvious
to an observer. There was no signage on the bus or anything on the bus tickets, transfers, or
passes that clearly indicated to passengers that AT manifested intent to control all objects found
in or on their buses.
The AT website listed the following message: “...the Lost and Found Office
receives and stores all items found on Arcadia Transit vehicles and property. All articles found
are held for sixty days before being sent to auction for disposal”. It is likely that if this case were
to go to trial the Court would find this insufficient to manifest intent to control because the
website was listed only on the transfer. Not all users of AT buses will obtain a transfer.
Not all
users of an AT bus who do obtain a transfer will have access to a computer or indeed knowledge
enough to navigate to a webpage. Furthermore, the message listed on the website does not give
specific instructions to finders of lost articles.
The wording of the messages listed on the website
are such that they read like an information for AT users who have lost articles, not instructions
for those who found them. The fact that AT listed their internal policy to conduct periodic
searches is also insufficient to manifest intent to control for the reasons stated above.
Using the precedent found in
Bridges
, it can be argued that AT did not have care and
custody of the money when it was found by Charlie Ryder. The facts of each case are similar in
that neither Mr Hawkesworth, not the AT driver had any knowledge of the money before it was
found, therefore neither assumed any property rights or had any duties as occupier imposed upon
them [
Parker
at 74]. When applying the case law found in
Bridges
to Charlie’s situation a case
can be made to prove that AT did not have care or custody of the money. When Charlie found the
envelope containing the money it was wedged between a seat and the window side of the bus,
8
making it highly unlikely that the AT driver would have had any knowledge of it being there. If
the driver had no knowledge of its existence, then he could not possibly exercise the same degree
of care and control as Charlie could by taking it into his possession.
The ratio in
Brock
states that the two elements of control and animus possidendi must co-
exist for an occupier to claim ownership over a finder.
Brock
failed to demonstrate control over
his vehicle because he regularly leant it to others.
Similarly, it can be demonstrated that AT
lacked strict control over their buses because any person could gain access to them by simply
paying a fare.
Conclusion
An argument can be presented to show that AT did not have strict control and failed to
manifest their intention to control chattels found on their property.
Based on the discussions
above, it is unlikely that AT can successfully present an argument in support of their position as
occupier. The decision found in
Brock
should be considered persuasive by the Provincial Court
of Alberta.
CONCLUSION
It is likely that this matter will be resolved in favour of Charlie Ryder. On an examination
of the facts and comparison with the applicable case law it can be clearly demonstrated that
Charlie has assumed the rights of a finder, and that he has properly discharged the associated
obligations.
AT on the other hand, did not properly manifest their intention to control. This
shortcoming prevents AT from asserting their rights as occupier.
9
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help