Halp Bros--Old Law Firm Stole My Couch
| Mewling Codepig International Law Enforcement Agency | 10/04/12 | | Passionate balding indian lodge | 10/04/12 | | Histrionic Up-to-no-good Lodge Antidepressant Drug | 10/04/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/05/12 | | big kink-friendly pistol | 10/04/12 | | Slippery milky hospital patrolman | 10/04/12 | | wonderful twisted parlour laser beams | 10/04/12 | | embarrassed to the bone gaming laptop fat ankles | 10/04/12 | | razzle-dazzle ladyboy | 10/04/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/04/12 | | Awkward cumskin sneaky criminal | 05/12/22 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/04/12 | | Excitant Elastic Band Volcanic Crater | 10/04/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/04/12 | | Pink Trip Psychic Athletic Conference | 10/04/12 | | swashbuckling hilarious telephone yarmulke | 10/05/12 | | red insanely creepy business firm | 10/05/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/05/12 | | silver puppy | 10/05/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/05/12 | | aromatic aqua spot | 10/05/12 | | wine prole gay wizard | 08/22/13 | | frozen stock car faggot firefighter | 05/27/17 | | Dead partner | 07/19/17 | | Razzmatazz genital piercing | 10/05/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/05/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 11/28/12 | | Bateful dopamine | 12/06/13 | | tantric galvanic water buffalo brunch | 12/06/13 | | wonderful twisted parlour laser beams | 05/27/17 | | flatulent market ceo | 05/12/22 | | exhilarant half-breed senate | 10/04/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/04/12 | | exhilarant half-breed senate | 10/04/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/04/12 | | Dead partner | 10/04/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/04/12 | | Soul-stirring filthy house french chef | 10/04/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/04/12 | | smoky school | 10/05/12 | | orchid adventurous factory reset button bawdyhouse | 10/05/12 | | Glassy rigpig | 10/05/12 | | Thriller fanboi | 05/27/17 | | wine prole gay wizard | 12/06/13 | | wonderful twisted parlour laser beams | 05/27/17 | | Bronze Stimulating Circlehead Regret | 07/19/17 | | supple juggernaut mad-dog skullcap | 07/19/17 | | Awkward cumskin sneaky criminal | 08/28/21 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 4th, 2012 6:46 PM Author: Glassy rigpig
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: Glassy rigpig
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: exhilarant half-breed senate
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: orchid adventurous factory reset button bawdyhouse
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) |
|
|