Treasure Found in Land Law Problem Question

Treasure Found in Land Law Problem QuestionCraigIn regards to the items comprise by Craig, assuming they argon non classified ad as nurture using the Treasure symbolise 1996, it preempt be suggested that Craig does non pitch the right of self-will of the items and must return them to Sarah and Tony. This is because he has found them du elude the course of his employment. Craig has worked at the Manor Farm for many years which is owned by Sarah and Tony. This suggests that he is an employee of Sarah and Tony. The rule is that if items are found during the course of employment, they belong to the employer, as seen in S bulge outh Staffordshire Water Company v Sharman, where because the employees found the rings during the course of their employment, (they were employed to clean the pool and the rings were found whilst they did so) they belonged to the landowner1. Donaldson LJ reinforces this rule in Parker v British Airways Board where he states that an employee who insures an item during the course of his employment finds that item on behalf of his employer2. What this shows is that unless there is a term in the fetch of employment which allows the employee to moderate items found during the course of their employment, or the employee finds the items outside the course of their employment, the items belong to the employer. Applying this rule to Craig, he found the items whilst plough one of the larger fields of Manor Farm. Although Craigs job description is not say, one can assume that he found the items during the course of his employment. If ploughing is not stated in his job description, so Craig can keep the items as he would be working outside the course of his employment, Also, if it is stipulated in the terms of Craigs contract that he can keep items found during employment, thence he can keep the items. If this is not the case, the items will belong to Sarah and Tony as employers and landowners. The reason why the items cannot be tell to belong to the neat owner is because the law assumes that items found in land belong to the owner of the land, whereas items found on land belong to the true owner. Here, the items were found in land as Craig discovered them whilst ploughing. This is seen in Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher, where auld LJ stated that when it comes to items in the ground, the original owner is unlikely to be found, hence the law looks for a substitute owner, which is the owner of the land where the item is found3.TreasureIf the items found by Craig are considered treasure under the 1996 Treasure Act, Craig alongside Sarah and Tony whitethorn receive compensation. However, this is at the discretion of the Secretary of State4. To determine whether the items found by Craig can be considered as treasure, one must look to the criteria set out in the Treasure Act 1996. In regards to the coins, it can be argued that they can be considered as treasure. This is because Craig found numerous coins. This co uld mean that there are at to the lowest degree two coins or ten or more coins5. If the coins fall into the former, they will need to have precious metal on them6 (gold or silver7). If they do not, they can still be classified as treasure if they fall under the latter. As they appear to be very old, they could be at least 300 years old8. If this is not the case, then the coins cannot be classified as treasure. If it is the case, then Craig could be able to be reimbursed at the Secretary of States discretion for finding the coins. Although the cup found by Craig is decorated with intricate pattern, suggesting that it is very old and valuable, it is ambiguous as to what metal the cup is made of. If it is made of precious metal9, then it can be classified as treasure. However, if not, then it is not treasure. Yet, because the cup was found in the same find as the coins10, it can be classified as treasure. The same can be said for the pottery vase which prima facie can be said to not fall under the definition of treasure as it does not have any precious metal on it11. Nevertheless, as it was found in the same find as the coins and cup, it can be considered as treasure. Assuming all these items are classified as treasure, the onus is on Craig to contact the Coroner within 14 days to notify him of the items found, other than he will be fined12. The reason why it is Craigs responsibility and not Sarah and Tony is because Craig decided to put the items in his bag and take it to his cottage. He did not pronounce Sarah and Tony about the items.DonaldIn regards to the diamond ring found by Donald, it is unreadable whether he has the right to keep the ring or not. Although Donald is a guest at the farm, it is not clear whether the subject area where he found the diamond ring was a public or private area as guests are not usually allowed access to the working areas of the farm. Applying the principle in Bridges v Hawkesworth where it was stated that the parcel which co ntained notes were found in the public go away of the shop and as such the notes were never in the custody of the shopkeeper13, if Donald found the ring in a private area, he will not be entitled to keep the diamond ring, and must hand it over to Sarah and Tony as it can be said that they have custody of it.However, if the diamond ring was found in an area which Donald had access to, it can be argued that he has a right to the diamond ring due to the rule of finders keepers established in Armory v Delamirie where it was held that though the plaintiff did not have an absolute right of ownership by finding the jewel, he was entitled to keep the jewel unless the true owner claimed it14. Similarly, it can be argued that Donald has the right to keep the diamond ring unless the true owner can be found. Using Donaldson LJ rules on the rights and obligations of a finder in Parker v British Airways Board, Donald is under an obligation to take all necessary measures to find the true owner o f the15 diamond ring. As he has not done so (he decides to keep it and give it to his girlfriend), it can be said that he does not have rights to the diamond ring. Also, using Parker v British Airways Board, it can be stated that Sarah and Tony may have a right of ownership to the diamond ring. They would have to show that they manifested an blueprint to exercise go out over the area the diamond ring was found16. Yet, this principle is quite ambiguous. How does one manifest an intention to exercise control of an area? A test to suggest an intention to exercise control was not formulated in Parker v British Airways Board. Perhaps one can use the factor Donaldson LJ used in this case, which is that British Airways should have had a insurance on mixed-up and found items which was available to the public17. Similarly, it can be stated that perhaps Sarah and Tony must showcase that they have a policy on lost and found objects which is available to the public to prove that they had man ifested an intention to exercise control over the area the diamond ring was found. Nonetheless, as stated by Bray, Donaldson LJ image of control is harsh as it leaves some doubt in the law as to what exactly a landowner must do to manifest an intention to control the land18. This would mean that if Sarah and Tony do not have a policy that is available to the public, Donald can keep the diamond ring provided he has tried to find the true owner.Assuming the diamond ring was found in an area which Donald can access, there is a problem posed as it is ambiguous as to if the diamond ring was found in or on land. This is because it was buried in some long grass. As stated by Stevens, the law is unclear in this area19. The distinction is important to make as it will determine who has the better right of ownership to the diamond ring. If the diamond ring can be said to be found on land, then Donald is entitled to the diamond ring if he has tried to find the true owner. If it was found in la nd, then Sarah and Tony will be entitled to the diamond ring as it is assumed that things found in land belong to the owner of the land. Another reason why Sarah and Tony may be entitled to the diamond ring if it was found in land is because Donalds status would have changed to that of a trespasser as he had to wee into the ground to pick up the diamond ring- he has gone beyond his authorisation as a guest. However, it can be argued using the reasoning of Auld LJ in Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher that Donald is not a trespasser and that the diamond ring was found on land. This is because picking up the diamond ring might not have interfered with the land or damaged it20. Yet, it can be argued that because the diamond ring was buried in some long grass, damage might have been done as perhaps Donald would have had to pull the grass from the roots to retrieve it. If it is the latter, Donald is a trespasser and has exceeded his licence on the land. If it is the former, Donald can keep the ring, provided he has tried to find the true owner.TreasureThe diamond ring is not treasure as it does not fit the definitions given in the Treasure Act 1996. The age of the ring is not told, it is not made of precious metal (gold or silver), neither was it found alongside any item that can be defined as treasure21. Thus, the diamond ring cannot be classified as treasure.EricIn regards to the 50 note found by Eric, it can be argued that Eric has a right of ownership to the money (provided he tries to find the true owner). As Eric was in the garden on the day that it was opened to the public, it can be said that he found the money in the public part of the farm. This can be seen in Bridges v Hawkesworth where it was stated that the notes were dropped in the public part of the shop and as such they were never in the custody of the shopkeeper22. Likewise, it can be said that Sarah and Tony were never in custody of the 50 note as it was found in a public part. Also, one can arg ue that the 50 note could go unnoticed until someone saw it. However, using Parker v British Airways Board, it can be said that Sarah and Tony may have a right of ownership to the 50 note. They would have to show that they manifested an intention to exercise control over the area the 50 was found. This could be done by them showcasing that they have a policy on lost and found items which is available to the public. If they do not have such a policy, Eric can keep the 50 note, provided he tries to find the true owner.ConclusionCraig does not have a right to ownership of the items which he found as they were found during the course of his employment. It can be said that these items are treasure so he would have to notify the coroner of his finds. Donald, depending on whether he has access to the area the diamond ring was found may have a right of ownership, but he must subdue to find the true owner of the diamond ring. Eric is entitled to keep the 50 note, provided Sarah and Tony hav e not manifested an intention to exercise control of the area he found it on.1 1896 2 QB 442 1982 QB 1004, 10173 1996 QB 334, 3444 Treasure Act 1996, s 10(3)5 ibid s1(1)(a)(ii) and (iii)6 ibid s1(1)(a)(ii)7 ibid s3(3)8 ibid (n 5)9 Treasure (n 4) s1(1)(a)(i)10 ibid s1(1)(d)(i)11 Treasure (n 9)12 ibid s8(1) and (3)(a)-(c)13 (1851) 21 LJQB 7514 (1722) 1 Str 505 KB, 1 (Pratt CJ)15 ibid (n 2) 1016 ibid17 ibid (n 2) 1019 (Donaldson LJ)18 Judith Bray, The law on treasure from a land lawyers perspective 2013 Conv 265, 26719 John Stevens, Finders weepers- landowners keepers1996 Conv 216, 21920 ibid (n 3)21 Treasure (n 4) s122 ibid(n 13)