Personal Property Case Study

A Bonzi found a necklace while staying at a hotel that is owned by Alpha Corp, and the question, “to whom does the necklace belong?” is asked. First of all, the type of property involved, from a legal perspective is personal property, and more specifically, tangible personal property because the necklace is a physical object that can be moved and touched. In determining who the necklace belongs to, the legal decision that needs to be made in relation to Bonzi is: who has legal ownership of the necklace? There is a legal rule that applies to people like Bonzi who find property. To start, it is important to note that personal property rights can be transferred by the intentions of one or more people meaning that it is possible to acquire property

First, one would need to know whether or not the original owner intentionally abandoned the necklace or misplaced/forgot/lost the necklace. In the former situation, they have no possession rights, but in the latter situations, they still have rights to the necklace. Additionally, finding the original owner may be difficult. If they could not be found, it would be hard to determine whether the necklace was abandoned or not, but if they could be found and they had abandoned the possession, the decision for possession rights is between Bonzi and Alpha Corp. However, if the original owner did not intentionally abandon the necklace, they are entitled to possession of the necklace. Even if the original owner had abandoned the necklace, one would still need to know where in the hotel the necklace was found by Bonzi. If the necklace was found in a public area like the lobby of the hotel, Alpha Corp would have rights to the necklace. However, if Bonzi found the necklace in a private are such as his hotel room, he would have rights to the necklace. In a situation where the original owner could not be located, either Bonzi or Alpha Corp would gain possession based on where the necklace was found, and could keep the necklace indefinitely unless the original owner comes

A determination needs to be made if MC Electric is required to pay GB the 50% commission on the deal. When determining whether or not the contract is binding, the area of law involved would be contract law. There are two rules/principles of law that apply to agents like Dortmund and his actions. The first legal principle has to do with whether or not Dortmund had the actual authority to make a deal with GB. Actual authority is the authority that is specifically set out in an agency contract where the principal authorizes an agent to act on its behalf. Additionally, actual authority may also be granted less formally through an oral delegation of authority by a principal. Dortmund could only have actual authority if his contract gave him the authority to make a deal like that with GB. The second legal principal that should be considered is whether or not Dortmund had apparent authority. Apparent authority exists when the principal creates the impression that the agent is authorized to act on the principal 's behalf. A principal can give apparent authority through conversation, but also through official job titles and positions (if they give the reasonable impression