Halp Bros--Old Law Firm Stole My Couch
| passionate nursing home | 10/04/12 | | misanthropic underhanded pit rigor | 10/04/12 | | swashbuckling liquid oxygen dragon | 10/04/12 | | Dark pistol | 10/05/12 | | Very Tactful Ratface | 10/04/12 | | Alcoholic histrionic site codepig | 10/04/12 | | Curious coiffed jewess | 10/04/12 | | Boyish Corner Persian | 10/04/12 | | Spectacular idiot | 10/04/12 | | Dark pistol | 10/04/12 | | Heady Psychic | 05/12/22 | | Dark pistol | 10/04/12 | | henna anal gas station | 10/04/12 | | Dark pistol | 10/04/12 | | Cream azn | 10/04/12 | | Sapphire Stimulating Native Reading Party | 10/05/12 | | Aphrodisiac locale | 10/05/12 | | Dark pistol | 10/05/12 | | Trip indian lodge | 10/05/12 | | Dark pistol | 10/05/12 | | chartreuse wonderful kitty cat friendly grandma | 10/05/12 | | Turquoise theatre | 08/22/13 | | adulterous insanely creepy faggotry | 05/27/17 | | maroon crackhouse hairy legs | 07/19/17 | | ruby nofapping selfie | 10/05/12 | | Dark pistol | 10/05/12 | | Dark pistol | 11/28/12 | | wine boiling water son of senegal | 12/06/13 | | Mustard motley sound barrier | 12/06/13 | | Curious coiffed jewess | 05/27/17 | | Claret greedy factory reset button station | 05/12/22 | | rambunctious titillating state indirect expression | 10/04/12 | | Dark pistol | 10/04/12 | | rambunctious titillating state indirect expression | 10/04/12 | | Dark pistol | 10/04/12 | | maroon crackhouse hairy legs | 10/04/12 | | Dark pistol | 10/04/12 | | Marvelous twinkling uncleanness | 10/04/12 | | Dark pistol | 10/04/12 | | Khaki Incel Lay | 10/05/12 | | balding set | 10/05/12 | | Dark pistol | 10/05/12 | | sienna business firm | 05/27/17 | | Turquoise theatre | 12/06/13 | | Curious coiffed jewess | 05/27/17 | | contagious fishy box office | 07/19/17 | | Clear thriller background story filthpig | 07/19/17 | | Heady Psychic | 08/28/21 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 4th, 2012 6:46 PM Author: Dark pistol
If I recall correctly from my 1L property class, you may have a right to the furniture. The common law rule is that whatsoever is fixed to the realty is thereby made a part of the realty to which it adheres. However, the new, prevailing rule is that tenants may remove whatever they install for the purpose of carrying on a trade (i.e. trade fixtures), provided that they can be uninstalled without injury to the premises, and that such removal is effected before they yield possession of the premises. Arguably, the couch was a trade fixture--you put it in your office for the purpose of aiding you in carrying on your trade as a lawyer. Given that you can remove it without injury to the premises, and because you haven't completely yielded possession of the premises, I think you have a colorable claim that you have a right to that couch, notwithstanding any extant ordinances. The rationale behind this rule is that it is conducive to trade and commerce. The tenant installs things for the benefit of carrying on his trade, not to enhance the landlord's realty.
You should also be aware that there are other theories that may be applied to these circumstances, depending on what jurisdiction you're in. There is the institutional theory: additions to the realty become a part of an economic unit, and therefore become the landlord's property.
I sincerely xoxohth. Let me know if you have any questions or if I need to clarify or expand on anything.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2069842&forum_id=2#21717502)
|
|
Date: October 5th, 2012 9:46 AM Author: Dark pistol
Ah, yes, well, because I'm a BIGLAW billy rather than a shitlaw steve, I would bring multiple claims if I was helping OP get his couch back. The aforesaid analysis is merely a possible argument if my other more cogent arguments fail. Look at it as a sort of quasi-landlord-tenant argument, perhaps. Surely, though, there is an argument to be made under the doctrine of finders. Let’s see what that analysis would look like, shall we? The rule of finders is that the finder of property has a right to that property against all the world except the true owner or prior possessor. In this case, OP is the true owner and prior possessor. Therefore, his boss does not have a right to that property. However, bossman is claiming that OP abandoned the couch. In order for one to abandon something, there must be an act of abandonment and intent to abandon. I’ll go ahead and concede that there was an act of abandonment; there is surely an argument that there was. However, OP never intended to abandon the property, as evidenced by his return to the premises in order to retrieve said property. Therefore, the property was not abandoned. Thus, again, OP has a colorable claim that he has a right to that couch.
Again, I sincerely xoxohth. Do let me know if I need to clarify or expand on anything.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2069842&forum_id=2#21721355)
|
Date: October 4th, 2012 10:09 PM Author: rambunctious titillating state indirect expression
Eh, I don't know about no couch but I'd probably be facing felony jail time if they added up all the office supplies I stole over the years.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2069842&forum_id=2#21718998)
|
Date: October 5th, 2012 12:08 PM Author: balding set
Fuck yo couch!
Buy another one you rich motherfucker!
Darkness is! Darkness is!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2069842&forum_id=2#21722501) |
|
|