Interesting cases, indeed. I should like to answer (partially, of course) Martin's question as to the position of other jurisdictions. This is Sweden speaking.

We don't have conversion, but, rather, a provision in penal law stating that you may not dispose of the property (meaning, here and below, chattels only) of somebody else to that person's detriment. However, it is also well-established that you may take ownership to res derelicta, and thus dipose of such things as you like.

In the present two examples, my educated guess (there's no authority on the point) is that you would have to make inquiries as to the wishes of the previous owner, if known, and if you don't know, make a reasonable assumptions about whether the property is res derelicta. You can, if you are uncertain and cannot get hold of the person you assume is (or was) holding title to the chattels, also hand over the stuff to the police as property lost and found, or forgotten (the rules are the same in both cases).

Sweden being a pragmatic (some would say, unprincipled) place, I don't think the question is likely to be put to the courts, but at least in the case of an old film set, I think you would be required to ask the RAF as to whether they want the stuff, and, if they don't and cannot tell you who might want to, you would be entitled to destroy the set as you wish. In the case of the stuff in the old farm house, I should think you would have to inquire with the previous owner (who, by the way, may be obligated to remove the unwanted stuff, unless there's a contract to the contrary, and else pay for the removal).

The "funny" thing is that you're doint all this, not only under the threat of committing a tort, but under the threat of being punished under penal law. On the other hand, most of these cases are apparently too trivial to be prosecuted. As said, I don't know of any such case having come before the courts.

Best wishes
Jakob



>>> Martin Hogg <Martin.Hogg@ed.ac.uk> 10-02-23 17:02 >>>

Like Bill, I find this a fascinating case (thanks for the reference,
Andrew). Similar facts must happen all the time, particularly in the
purchase of domestic property. My brother, for instance, recently
bought an old farmhouse, and was irritated on taking possession to
find one of the stables full of old junk which had been left behind by
the previous owner. His precise circumstances would not have been
helped by the decision of Mr Edelman QC, however, the farmhouse being
in Scotland. As, under Scots law, the abandonment of property
transfers ownership in it to the Crown, this puts my unhappy brother
in a rather difficult position: does he destroy the property even
though this technically constitutes destruction of Crown property (not
that I imagine the Crown would want all the junk which had been left
behind)?

I would be interested to learn of the position in other jurisdictions.

Martin Hogg
Edinburgh Law School



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.