Maybe this is naive.  But I wonder if there is not another solution, namely treating property left behind in a house as intended to be a gift to the new occupier.

There is then, though a knock on problem to the happy recipient if the cost of removing the material is higher than its value.  This happened to me decades ago.  The story has to be told against myself.  When I left a student flat that I shared with others I took away with me the inside of a piano that I and one of my fellows had bought at auction, with a view to renovating it.  He then later left the property and left the rest of the piano there.  In due course the landlord sold the property with that still there.  I then a year later bought another property in the same building - a complete coincidence.  We became friendly with the now owner who had the outside of the piano.  I had thrown away the inside by now having found it was impossible to renovate.  I agreed to organise the disposal of the rest of the piano, and with friends got it down the stairs to a point where the local authority could remove it as rubbish.  When their workers came they stole the brass handles from it and left the piano.  Though the authority had a statutory duty to remove it I rewarded two friends with bottles of whisy, hired a van and disposed of it.

It is a good story if nothing else!

John Blackie

Professor John  W G Blackie

email: john.blackie@strath.ac.uk<mailto:john.blackie@strath.ac.uk>

Mobile: 07917728908

Home Office phone: +44 (0)131 202 6481

Home Office Address:

The Old Coach House

23a Russell Place

Edinburgh

EH8 9YL

Departmental Address:

The Law School

University of Strathclyde

The Lord Hope Building

St James' Road

Glasgow G4 0LT

phone: +44 (0)131 202 6481

fax: +44 (0)141 548 3639

________________________________

From: Jakob Heidbrink [Jakob.Heidbrink@ihh.hj.se]

Sent: 23 February 2010 16:56

To: Martin.Hogg@ed.ac.uk; A.M.Tettenborn@exeter.ac.uk

Cc: obligations@uwo.ca

Subject: Sv: Re: Conversion with a human face

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

B.A., M.Jur. (Oxon), LL.D.

Assistant Professor in Law

Jönköping International Business School

Box 1026

S-551 11 Jönköping

Sweden

Tel.: +46 36 10 1871

>>> 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.