Halp Bros--Old Law Firm Stole My Couch
| Navy Swashbuckling Shrine Faggot Firefighter | 10/04/12 | | Adventurous immigrant | 10/04/12 | | burgundy abode toaster | 10/04/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/05/12 | | Orchid irate crotch dragon | 10/04/12 | | shimmering passionate sanctuary | 10/04/12 | | Infuriating trump supporter orchestra pit | 10/04/12 | | pink home fanboi | 10/04/12 | | talented yarmulke son of senegal | 10/04/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/04/12 | | razzmatazz liquid oxygen | 05/12/22 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/04/12 | | Heady feces | 10/04/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/04/12 | | Harsh indian lodge | 10/04/12 | | Smoky national | 10/05/12 | | marvelous cyan station | 10/05/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/05/12 | | comical boiling water church | 10/05/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/05/12 | | Citrine titillating institution skinny woman | 10/05/12 | | Histrionic place of business | 08/22/13 | | Sickened Charismatic Ticket Booth Black Woman | 05/27/17 | | Vigorous gold codepig | 07/19/17 | | Appetizing business firm deer antler | 10/05/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/05/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 11/28/12 | | Nighttime Set Digit Ratio | 12/06/13 | | brindle hominid | 12/06/13 | | Infuriating trump supporter orchestra pit | 05/27/17 | | bossy resort | 05/12/22 | | Cheese-eating party of the first part private investor | 10/04/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/04/12 | | Cheese-eating party of the first part private investor | 10/04/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/04/12 | | Vigorous gold codepig | 10/04/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/04/12 | | Laughsome alpha nibblets | 10/04/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/04/12 | | thriller stage voyeur | 10/05/12 | | Racy market | 10/05/12 | | Onyx Impressive Field | 10/05/12 | | Bateful Rusted Juggernaut Gas Station | 05/27/17 | | Histrionic place of business | 12/06/13 | | Infuriating trump supporter orchestra pit | 05/27/17 | | up-to-no-good background story mad-dog skullcap | 07/19/17 | | Slimy kink-friendly partner | 07/19/17 | | razzmatazz liquid oxygen | 08/28/21 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 4th, 2012 6:46 PM Author: Onyx Impressive Field
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: Onyx Impressive Field
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: Cheese-eating party of the first part private investor
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: Racy market
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) |
|
|