Halp Bros--Old Law Firm Stole My Couch
| Haunting Office Internal Respiration | 10/04/12 | | aggressive library depressive | 10/04/12 | | Ungodly yellow legend | 10/04/12 | | Lime hominid | 10/05/12 | | ebony violent business firm | 10/04/12 | | Scarlet impertinent parlour | 10/04/12 | | Amber Elite Base Feces | 10/04/12 | | lascivious gay sanctuary | 10/04/12 | | Fragrant misunderstood goal in life hell | 10/04/12 | | Lime hominid | 10/04/12 | | Disgusting Piazza Cuckoldry | 05/12/22 | | Lime hominid | 10/04/12 | | Lemon laser beams | 10/04/12 | | Lime hominid | 10/04/12 | | galvanic useless brakes puppy | 10/04/12 | | Jade Sinister Meetinghouse | 10/05/12 | | frisky indian lodge | 10/05/12 | | Lime hominid | 10/05/12 | | blathering lake party of the first part reading party | 10/05/12 | | Lime hominid | 10/05/12 | | Transparent Heaven Roast Beef | 10/05/12 | | Exciting field | 08/22/13 | | brass step-uncle's house messiness | 05/27/17 | | white nudist stead | 07/19/17 | | Beady-eyed carmine brethren | 10/05/12 | | Lime hominid | 10/05/12 | | Lime hominid | 11/28/12 | | Translucent nubile tank | 12/06/13 | | slimy bipolar rigpig dilemma | 12/06/13 | | Amber Elite Base Feces | 05/27/17 | | glassy stock car | 05/12/22 | | Irradiated doctorate skinny woman | 10/04/12 | | Lime hominid | 10/04/12 | | Irradiated doctorate skinny woman | 10/04/12 | | Lime hominid | 10/04/12 | | white nudist stead | 10/04/12 | | Lime hominid | 10/04/12 | | thriller mad cow disease set | 10/04/12 | | Lime hominid | 10/04/12 | | henna boiling water | 10/05/12 | | cerebral boltzmann | 10/05/12 | | Lime hominid | 10/05/12 | | contagious know-it-all shrine | 05/27/17 | | Exciting field | 12/06/13 | | Amber Elite Base Feces | 05/27/17 | | Drab Orchestra Pit | 07/19/17 | | Mustard locus azn | 07/19/17 | | Disgusting Piazza Cuckoldry | 08/28/21 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 4th, 2012 6:46 PM Author: Lime hominid
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: Lime hominid
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: Irradiated doctorate skinny woman
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: cerebral boltzmann
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) |
|
|