Ashweb Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 [font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][color="#5a5a5a"][size=3]I bought a used bass from a guitar shop on eBay. It arrived fairly quick and in pristine condition, looking incredibly pretty; when I plugged it in and tried it - it sounded great and I was looking forward to my first neighbour complaint as it's soooo much louder than my other bass. I have to say it felt right to play, sounded right for what I want and I was totally smitten - looking forward to a long and happy relationship with this guitar.[/size][/color][/font] [color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Then I get an email from the shop saying there's a dispute over ownership of the bass and would I consider returning it for a full refund? Talk about build me up to knock me down!! I must admit that I don't know what to do with this - has anyone else had similar experiences? How was the matter resolved?[/size][/font][/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grangur Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Me thinks you need more details. If it's a used bass, there could possibly be a problem of the person who traded it in wasn't the rightful owner. Stolen perhaps? "Handling Stolen goods" is a criminal offence. Edited January 20, 2016 by Grangur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowieBass Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 If it's a bass that turns out to have been stolen there are certain steps you need to take https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/if-you-think-youve-bought-stolen-goods/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashweb Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 The info I've been given is the shop bought it in good faith from a young lad and his mum. The estranged father / husband is now claiming it is his bass and he only lent it to his son and wants it back. I have some issues with this: The shop must have had it for some time before trying to move it on eBay, then the auction was a 7 day auction so there was plenty of time to reclaim it from the shop; also I can't shake the feeling they want it back as they've had a better offer elsewhere... It was a pretty good bargain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahpook Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 [quote name='Grangur' timestamp='1453328259' post='2958578'] Me thinks you need more details. If it's a used bass, there could possibly be a problem of the person who traded it in wasn't the rightful owner. Stolen perhaps? "Handling Stolen goods" is a criminal offence. [/quote] Very much so - ask for more details. Mind you, if it turns out to be stolen or something similar then I'd be doing the decent thing, regardless of how nice it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowieBass Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 You're assuming the father asked for the bass back knowing it was already with the shop and up for sale. It's possible that he only discovered it had been sold after you'd bought it. Can you contact your local CAB to ask for their advice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahpook Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 [quote name='Ashweb' timestamp='1453328755' post='2958584'] The info I've been given is the shop bought it in good faith from a young lad and his mum. The estranged father / husband is now claiming it is his bass and he only lent it to his son and wants it back. I have some issues with this: The shop must have had it for some time before trying to move it on eBay, then the auction was a 7 day auction so there was plenty of time to reclaim it from the shop; also I can't shake the feeling they want it back as they've had a better offer elsewhere... It was a pretty good bargain. [/quote] If that's the case with the estranged father then I'd deffo be taking the refund - I'd not want to profit from a situation like that, or get involved for that matter. As for the shop wanting it back, welll....you've no idea how it's all played out, so guessing at a chain of events that justifies keeping the bass seems a bit....well YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlloyd Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 If the father's story is true, I would take the refund rather than get stuck in a legal dispute that would, without any doubt, cost me time and money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashweb Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Yeah, that was my gut instinct when I got the email, and I'm assuming the shop will pay for the courier to return the item. Lucky I still have all the packing materials. I emailed the shop today as they are closed on Wednesdays and gave them my mobile number so we can discuss it direct without playing email ping pong. I shall like to hear what they have to say - thanks for all the advice guys; I shall have to console myself with hunting out a replacement. There's some nice Ibanez's about at the moment... Edit: Just had to google YMMV. Thanks ahpook that's a new one on me. Edited January 20, 2016 by Ashweb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grangur Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Legally, your contract is with the shop. So you have no obligation to the previous owners. The bass is unlikely to be an irreplaceable item so the family should sort that out between themselves. IMHO the only question for you is, after being made aware of the history of the bass and the tug-of-war over it, do you really want it? Will you always be reminded of the agro whenever you pick it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geek99 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) [quote name='Ashweb' timestamp='1453328755' post='2958584'] The info I've been given is the shop bought it in good faith from a young lad and his mum. The estranged father / husband is now claiming it is his bass and he only lent it to his son and wants it back. I have some issues with this: The shop must have had it for some time before trying to move it on eBay, then the auction was a 7 day auction so there was plenty of time to reclaim it from the shop; also I can't shake the feeling they want it back as they've had a better offer elsewhere... It was a pretty good bargain. [/quote] They are doing the right thing I think you are the "first buyer without notice" - until now that is You should return it for the refund, having notified the local police that you are doing so. Edited January 21, 2016 by Geek99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machines Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Who else wants to know what bass it is ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I'd let it go...just too much hassle to keep it..and IF it did turn out the be stolen... or reported as stolen, you may have to return and might get no refund..?? Too many complications, tbh.... And if the background story is true, then if it was your bass that someone had cashed in on..you'd want it back..?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuNkShUi Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 [quote name='Machines' timestamp='1453367380' post='2958725'] Who else wants to know what bass it is ? [/quote] meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Jack Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) I read this whilst sat next to a lawyer, so I asked her whether or not there's any truth (in general terms) in the idea that possession is nine parts of the law. She said that it can still be true in terms of land ownership (which is where the notion originated) but that the idea has very little application for other tangible things. Then she told me something I didn't already know, which was a change made to the law of Theft in the late 60s regarding possession, ownership and evidence. In the welter of newly-created dining out in the newly-created restaurants of the 60s, a new scam was developed. People would walk into a restaurant, order a meal, eat it, then refuse to pay for it on the grounds that there wasn't (now) any evidence that they had been served a meal ... the food was all gone. Under the law of Theft as then framed, this was enough to enable them to plead Not Guilty and to walk free from the Court. What a great idea. Shame they changed the law really. Edited January 21, 2016 by Happy Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul S Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 This is a simple 'theft/receiving stolen goods' issue. The key point here is the original owner - estranged father - says he didn't give anyone the right to sell it (so it was effectively 'stolen') and so he legally retains ownership of it no matter what anyone else says or does, albeit in good faith as far as you and the shop are concerned. You will have to return it (as it is 'stolen property') and get a refund. Then perhaps consider approaching the owner directly who would appear to be using the situation as some sort of leverage and may not actually want it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gelfin Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) This definition of theft should make things clear. If the Bass in question was "loaned" to the lad, then it has now been stolen. It is still the posession of the father. Sorry about the poor copy and paste. [center] [b] Theft Act 1968[/b] [b] 1968 CHAPTER 60[/b] [size=1]An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to theft and similar or associated offences, and in connection therewith to make provision as to criminal proceedings by one party to a marriage against the other, and to make certain amendments extending beyond England and Wales in the Post Office Act 1953 and other enactments; and for other purposes connected therewith.[/size][/center] [right][26th July 1968][/right] [color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=4][size=1]Annotations:[url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60#Annotationd51e147Help"][/url][/size] [color=#333333][size=1][b]Modifications etc. (not altering text)[/b][/size][/color] [size=1][size=1][color=#666666][size=1]C1[/size][/color]Act amended as to mode of trial by [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1980/43"]Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43, SIF 82)[/url], [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1980/43/schedule/1/paragraph/28"][b]Sch. 1 para. 28[/b][/url][/size][/size] [size=1][size=1][color=#666666][size=1]C2[/size][/color]By [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1991/53"]Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53, SIF 39:1)[/url], [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1991/53/section/101/1"]s. 101(1)[/url], [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1991/53/schedule/12/paragraph/23"][b]Sch. 12 para. 23[/b][/url]; [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/1991/2208"]S.I. 1991/2208[/url], [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/1991/2208/article/2/1"]art. 2(1)[/url], [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/1991/2208/schedule/1"][b]Sch.1[/b][/url] it is provided (14.10.1991) that in relation to any time before the commencement of s. 70 of that 1991 Act (which came into force on 1.10.1992 by [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/1992/333"]S.I. 1992/333[/url], [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/1992/333/article/2/2"]art. 2(2)[/url], [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/1992/333/schedule/2"][b]Sch. 2[/b][/url]) references in any enactment amended by that 1991 Act, to youth courts shall be construed as references to juvenile courts.[/size][/size] [color=#333333][size=1][b]Commencement Information[/b][/size][/color] [size=1][size=1][color=#666666][size=1]I1[/size][/color]Act wholly in force at 1.1.1969, see [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1968/60/section/35/1"]s. 35(1)[/url][/size][/size][/size][/font][/color] [b] [/b] [center][b][size=1][i]Definition of “theft”[/i][/size][/b][/center] [b] 1Basic definition of theft.[/b] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](1)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](2)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](3)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).[/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=4][size=1]Annotations:[url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60#Annotationd51e164Help"][/url][/size] [color=#333333][size=1][b]Modifications etc. (not altering text)[/b][/size][/color] [size=1][size=1][color=#666666][size=1]C3[/size][/color][url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1968/60/section/1/1"]S. 1(1)[/url] applied (25.8.2000) by [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/2000/6"]2000 c. 6[/url], [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/2000/6/section/148/8"][b]ss. 148(8)[/b][/url], [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/2000/6/section/168"]168[/url][/size][/size][/size][/font][/color] [b] 2“Dishonestly”[/b] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](1)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](a)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]( [/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]©[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](2)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.[/size][/font][/color] [b] 3“Appropriates”.[/b] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](1)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](2)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.[/size][/font][/color] [b] 4“Property”.[/b] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](1)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](2)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]A person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by him or by his directions, except in the following cases, that it to say—[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](a)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]when he is a trustee or personal representative, or is authorised by power of attorney, or as liquidator of a company, or otherwise, to sell or dispose of land belonging to another, and he appropriates the land or anything forming part of it by dealing with it in breach of the confidence reposed in him; or[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]( [/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed; or[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]©[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]when, being in possession of the land under a tenancy, he appropriates the whole or part of any fixture or structure let to be used with the land.[/size][/font][/color][list] [*][color=black][size=1]For purposes of this subsection “land” does not include incorporeal hereditaments; “tenancy” means a tenancy for years or any less period and includes an agreement for such a tenancy, but a person who after the end of a tenancy remains in possession as statutory tenant or otherwise is to be treated as having possession under the tenancy, and “let” shall be construed accordingly.[/size][/color] [/list] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](3)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose.[/size][/font][/color][list] [*][color=black][size=1]For purposes of this subsection “mushroom” includes any fungus, and “plant” includes any shrub or tree.[/size][/color] [/list] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](4)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any such creature, unless either it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in course of reducing it into possession.[/size][/font][/color] [b] 5“Belonging to another”.[/b] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](1)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](2)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and an intention to defeat the trust shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive of the property any person having that right.[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](3)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other.[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](4)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds.[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](5)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]Property of a corporation sole shall be regarded as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.[/size][/font][/color] [b] 6“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.[/b] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](1)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.[/size][/font][/color] [right][color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1](2)[/size][/font][/color][/right] [color=black][font=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][size=1]Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.[/size][/font][/color] Edited January 21, 2016 by gelfin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 The link to CAB Howie posted earlier states you shouldn't return it to the shop, but take it to the police station and get a crime number. I'd e-mail the shop back with that link and tell them that's what you'll be doing and will expect a refund when you provide them with the crime number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 8 Wire Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 [quote name='Ashweb' timestamp='1453327406' post='2958564'] [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][color=#5a5a5a][size=3]I bought a used bass from a guitar shop on eBay. It arrived fairly quick and in pristine condition, looking incredibly pretty; when I plugged it in and tried it - it sounded great and I was looking forward to my first neighbour complaint as it's soooo much louder than my other bass. I have to say it felt right to play, sounded right for what I want and I was totally smitten - looking forward to a long and happy relationship with this guitar.[/size][/color][/font] [color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Then I get an email from the shop saying there's a dispute over ownership of the bass and would I consider returning it for a full refund? Talk about build me up to knock me down!! I must admit that I don't know what to do with this - has anyone else had similar experiences? How was the matter resolved?[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] Hi mate, possession isn't 9/10th of the law. That used to relate to land (as someone said above), but hasn't for a long time, especially registered land. In one sense it relates to your bass, if you hold it for 6 years, it goes past the Limitation Act period, so the owners wouldn't be able to get it back off you - criminal charges (for the son not you probably) would be another matter. Under the law of contract you have a binding contract for the shop to supply you with the bass that you hold. Hence you could legally make them supply you with one exactly the same and cover any expenses you incur as a result. If the bass is a one off, then they need to negotiate the termination of the contract with you. At the very least you would expect any expenses (like postage, time etc) to be covered and obviously a refund. So I would not be sending the bass back until I had received the refund for it and postage costs - or at the very least written assurance of same if you trust them. You would be justified in asking for payment to cover your time and inconvenience but that is up to you - remember that this isn't a return by you or a faulty product, its the retailer breaking their contract with you. Good Luck, Cheers - what bass is it!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Theft Act 1968 1968 CHAPTER 60 An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to theft and similar or associated offences, and in connection therewith to make provision as to criminal proceedings by one party to a marriage against the other, and to make certain amendments extending beyond England and Wales in the Post Office Act 1953 and other enactments; and for other purposes connected therewith. [26th July 1968] Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1Act amended as to mode of trial by Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43, SIF 82), Sch. 1 para. 28 C2By Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53, SIF 39:1), s. 101(1), Sch. 12 para. 23; S.I. 1991/2208, art. 2(1), Sch.1 it is provided (14.10.1991) that in relation to any time before the commencement of s. 70 of that 1991 Act (which came into force on 1.10.1992 by S.I. 1992/333, art. 2(2), Sch. 2) references in any enactment amended by that 1991 Act, to youth courts shall be construed as references to juvenile courts. Commencement Information I1Act wholly in force at 1.1.1969, see s. 35(1) Definition of “theft” 1Basic definition of theft. (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. (2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit. (3) The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section). Annotations:Posted Image Modifications etc. (not altering text) C3S. 1(1) applied (25.8.2000) by 2000 c. 6, ss. 148(8), 168 2“Dishonestly” (1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or ( if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or © (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps. (2) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property. 3“Appropriates”. (1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner. (2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property. 4“Property”. (1) “Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. (2) A person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by him or by his directions, except in the following cases, that it to say— (a) when he is a trustee or personal representative, or is authorised by power of attorney, or as liquidator of a company, or otherwise, to sell or dispose of land belonging to another, and he appropriates the land or anything forming part of it by dealing with it in breach of the confidence reposed in him; or ( when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed; or © when, being in possession of the land under a tenancy, he appropriates the whole or part of any fixture or structure let to be used with the land. For purposes of this subsection “land” does not include incorporeal hereditaments; “tenancy” means a tenancy for years or any less period and includes an agreement for such a tenancy, but a person who after the end of a tenancy remains in possession as statutory tenant or otherwise is to be treated as having possession under the tenancy, and “let” shall be construed accordingly. (3) A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose. For purposes of this subsection “mushroom” includes any fungus, and “plant” includes any shrub or tree. (4) Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any such creature, unless either it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in course of reducing it into possession. 5“Belonging to another”. (1) Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest). (2) Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and an intention to defeat the trust shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive of the property any person having that right. (3) Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other. (4) Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds. (5) Property of a corporation sole shall be regarded as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation. 6“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”. (1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 If I might venture a somewhat less vegetarian point of view: F*** 'em. If you like the bass, keep it. If any of these folk start talking about getting 'legal', call their bluff and make them shell out. If it turns out you do have to return it, strip it, 'cos this is what you did back when you bought it in good faith and it was yours to do as you liked with. I'm much more inclined to believe they've had a better offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Personally, if I got formal notification that it's been reported stolen (i.e. confirmation from the polis), I'd send it back for a full refund plus expenses. Until then, I'd assume they just got a better offer, and keep it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toneknob Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Sell it back for a profit. You know, to cover expenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 8 Wire Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 [quote name='Ashweb' timestamp='1453328755' post='2958584'] The info I've been given is the shop bought it in good faith from a young lad and his mum. The estranged father / husband is now claiming it is his bass and he only lent it to his son and wants it back. I have some issues with this: The shop must have had it for some time before trying to move it on eBay, then the auction was a 7 day auction so there was plenty of time to reclaim it from the shop; also I can't shake the feeling they want it back as they've had a better offer elsewhere... It was a pretty good bargain. [/quote] I've just reread this. There is no evidence whatsoever that this bass has been stolen. Is the father really going to prosecute his son? The police will have nothing to do with this, they'll just say its a civil not criminal matter. At best what you have is a civil dispute between the father and the son as to legal title of the bass, its the fathers word against the son, it isn't going to go any further, let alone to a court case. If you want the bass, keep it, let them do the running to get it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunburstjazz1967 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Just tell the shop you didn't like it and sold it on to a guy in a pub car park,sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.