Emma Grant – ID: 95333317. Tutor: Hazel Nicoll
The Rolex
The ownership of an expensive Rolex watch is at issue in a dispute between Mary and her
University concerning the University’s lost and found policies. Mary handed the Rolex watch
to the university after finding it on campus in a lecture theatre, with the hope that it would
either be returned to its rightful owner or given back to her if no owner was to be found. She
followed up on the Rolex watch and discovered that there had been no attempt to track down
the owner; instead, it had been sold at auction. It was sold for $950 at auction. Mary was not
given the value it was sold at auction for by the university.
The fact that Mary found a lost, valuable item while the owner was unable to claim the property
is noteworthy in this regard. The establishment also didn't have the item under their control or
custody until Mary discovered it, and they sold it without making an effort to get in touch with
the rightful owner or try to follow up on the item with Mary.
Issue
Whether the establishment that occupies the location where a lost item is found has a better
claim to it or the value of it, than the finder (when the true owner cannot be located or
identified), if the item was not under their care or supervision prior to being found.
Precedent
Armoury v. Delamirie and Bridges v. Hawksworth are two precedent-setting decisions that
provide insight into the judge's likely decision. Both times, the true owner of an obtained
valuable object was in question. The law stating that the finder is entitled to the object or the
value of it in damages if the item has been lost or sold was outlined and used in Armoury v.
Delamirie [1722] 1 Stra 505, and the plaintiff was given damages in lieu of the sold diamonds.
Following this case was Bridges v. Hawksworth [1851] LJQB 75, in which the ownership of
£65 pounds discovered on Hawksworth's shop floor was contested. Despite the argument that
it was discovered on Hawksworth's property, the judge also sided with Bridges in this case. In
his decision, Patterson J stated that his decision "had never been disputed" and that it followed
the precedent set by Pratt CJ in Armoury v. Delamirie. Following the precedent in each of these
cases, it would be likely that the judge would find Mary in favour of the issue and award her
the value of the Rolex she found.
The Rolex
The ownership of an expensive Rolex watch is at issue in a dispute between Mary and her
University concerning the University’s lost and found policies. Mary handed the Rolex watch
to the university after finding it on campus in a lecture theatre, with the hope that it would
either be returned to its rightful owner or given back to her if no owner was to be found. She
followed up on the Rolex watch and discovered that there had been no attempt to track down
the owner; instead, it had been sold at auction. It was sold for $950 at auction. Mary was not
given the value it was sold at auction for by the university.
The fact that Mary found a lost, valuable item while the owner was unable to claim the property
is noteworthy in this regard. The establishment also didn't have the item under their control or
custody until Mary discovered it, and they sold it without making an effort to get in touch with
the rightful owner or try to follow up on the item with Mary.
Issue
Whether the establishment that occupies the location where a lost item is found has a better
claim to it or the value of it, than the finder (when the true owner cannot be located or
identified), if the item was not under their care or supervision prior to being found.
Precedent
Armoury v. Delamirie and Bridges v. Hawksworth are two precedent-setting decisions that
provide insight into the judge's likely decision. Both times, the true owner of an obtained
valuable object was in question. The law stating that the finder is entitled to the object or the
value of it in damages if the item has been lost or sold was outlined and used in Armoury v.
Delamirie [1722] 1 Stra 505, and the plaintiff was given damages in lieu of the sold diamonds.
Following this case was Bridges v. Hawksworth [1851] LJQB 75, in which the ownership of
£65 pounds discovered on Hawksworth's shop floor was contested. Despite the argument that
it was discovered on Hawksworth's property, the judge also sided with Bridges in this case. In
his decision, Patterson J stated that his decision "had never been disputed" and that it followed
the precedent set by Pratt CJ in Armoury v. Delamirie. Following the precedent in each of these
cases, it would be likely that the judge would find Mary in favour of the issue and award her
the value of the Rolex she found.
