What does a “claim on the thief” mean? As in the thief is obliged to return something of equal value?

That is how it works. If you want to find out the right and wrongs of these matters, my method is the one to be adopted - that is, one thinks about relevantly analogous cases about which parties are not heavily politically or financially invested. — Bartricks

And that is what @James Riley did. He thought about your analogous example, and came to conclusions different from yours. What appears to be the case to him isn’t what appears to be the case to you. How do we resolve this?

As for me, I agree with your conclusions but not the principles you derive. You got this:

If, however, you do not diminish its value or do anything at all with or to it, then you are obliged to return it.

By contrast, if you add value to it by incorporating it into something else or transform it in a value adding way, then you owe the original owner the value of the original, but no more than that. — Bartricks

From looking at a slice of pizza. I don’t think that’s very analogous to land. It’s very difficult to increase the value of a slice of pizza but not nearly as difficult to increase the value of a plot of land for one.

You do this weird thing where you derive principles out of individual appearances, and then never revise the principles when further appearances contradict. For instance: you derive the existence of an OOO God by reasoning from a set of appearances, and never revise the position when it contradicts much clearer appearances such as “rape is an injustice”

Put simply, you conclude too much from too little. Like someone who eats a strawberry and an apple then concludes “all red things are sweet and healthy”. Then when someone eats a poisonous red berry and dies you conclude “since all red things are sweet and healthy, this person is not dead, merely pretending to be”, refusing to revise the conclusion you initially drew no matter how much evidence to the contrary appears afterwards.

You probably don’t think this is the case. Which brings us back to how we resolve contradictory appearances (either contradicting with your own, or others’ appearances). I keep asking you how to resolve these and you cannot respond. Because you don’t have a basis, you just discard or accept certain premises in order to forge the conclusion you want. Nothing more.

Yes, only compensatory damages could be claimed.

...good faith in his acquisition. — Benkei

I agree - but there is too wide a scope for disengenuity. I buy a top range brand new bike for £50 online. Turns out it was stolen. How could I possibly have known? Hmmm.... I think there's a case for strict liability in the law, i.e. it makes no difference what I did or didn't know. But good faith can be a reasonable excuse when I really could not have known.

That wouldn't qualify as good faith in the Netherlands because the ridiculously low price means you should've been aware or be able to demonstrate you researched why this bike in fact is legit. There's a duty to investigate which duty might be higher under circumstances. A very low price, not being it in a store etc. are circumstances requiring more investigation by the buyer.

Then please explain why Dutch law protects the buyer of stolen goods if he acted in good faith (barring goods registered in public register). Good faith would be he wasn't aware and was, given the circumstances, not required to be aware the goods were stolen. — Benkei

It could be that the Dutch, like Bartricks, are wrong. It sounds like the old legal principle "finders keepers, losers weepers" that we use in America on the kindergarten playground. I wonder what, if anything, the Dutch do to make the victim whole? Maybe it's a hold-over from Dutch Colonialism? Not sure.

And legality and ethics aren't as related as you make it out to be. Laws are about economics more than about ethics. — Benkei

I didn't say anything about law and ethics. I was talking about law and philosophy. I also specifically referenced the messy and dumber process of making laws (statutory), where economics play a larger role. That is one reason we have common law, where judges can act in equity. I also specifically stated that none of this was perfect. Money can buy judges. Some judges are stupid. Some are rapists and drunks. I was talking about the likes of Learned Hand and others. Still not perfect, but thinkers nonetheless.

Sometimes it is good to put yourself in the shoes of the victim instead of the beneficiary of wrongful acts. Those who have benefited and don't want to be grateful and graceful and compensatory like to put them self in the position of what they believe is an innocent third party purchaser for value. That's part of the open conspiracy, where we want to clean the slate and start over with what he have as the baseline. Completely ignoring how we got it.

No arguments - we just wait for James's pronouncements. — Bartricks

It's called "Philosopher King." I like it. As long as I'm the King. Maybe if I go out and steal a bunch of shit, or if I have it laundered, then I'll be on my way! Yeah, that's the ticket! I'll buy shit from America that they stole from Indians and slaves. Maybe even shit made in Asia for 14 cents an hour! Cool. Now bow down before me, serf!

It could be that the Dutch, like Bartricks, are wrong. It sounds like the old legal principle "finders keepers, losers weepers" that we use in America on the kindergarten playground. I wonder what, if anything, the Dutch do to make the victim whole? Maybe it's a hold-over from Dutch Colonialism? Not sure. — James Riley

It's not just the Netherlands, it's continental Europe. Definitely since the code civil and possibly since the Codex Justinianus depending on how old caveat emptor is exactly.

In any case, I don't recognise anything of what I explained in your childish simplification except an idiotic arrogance that the system you grew up with is the only sensible one.

Edit: actually if you think about it also makes more sense. It only requires the original owner to sue the thief to be made whole. In the other case, the original owner sues the buyer, and the buyer has to sue the thief, which is cumbersome and a waste of time.

It's not just the Netherlands, it's continental Europe. Definitely since the code civil and possibly since the Codex Justinianus depending on how old caveat emptor is exactly. — Benkei

Like I said above, buyer beware. Not seller, not victim: buyer.

In any case, I don't recognise anything of what I explained in your childish simplification except an idiotic arrogance that the system you grew up with is the only sensible one. — Benkei

How worse the state that backs the hand of a thief, or backs the buyer who benefits from theft? That buyer bought on the street because it was cheaper than going into a store and buying legit. But even then, pawn shops know the drill. At least in the U.S. If that is idiotic arrogance, I'll take it. Too bad we don't protect the victims of U.S. gunboat diplomacy and imperialism. We are like the Dutch, et al, that way.

He acquired ownership as long as he can demonstrate good faith in his acquisition. The original owner is left with a claim on the thief. — Benkei

All kinds of problems with this.
What is it exactly that the original owner owns? What does ownership mean, in The Netherlands? Your stuff is stolen and finds its way into yard sales and second hand shops. I buy some of it. And you're out of luck? Something is missing in your account. Can you give a very brief summary of how this might work in real life?

Ownership here means it's mine, and only I can transfer any rights in it or to it. Apparently according to you the thief acquires a right that he can transfer - either that or the ownership is created out of mere innocent possession. And how does that work with children? They're always innocent possessors, yes? And so forth.

How worse the state that backs the hand of a thief, or backs the buyer who benefits from theft? That buyer bought on the street because it was cheaper than going into a store and buying legit. — James Riley

Go back and read again what I wrote about good faith, because this is again a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I would think as a trained lawyer you'd actually be interested in realising there are different approaches possible.

Ownership here means it's mine, and only I can transfer any rights in it or to it. Apparently according to you the thief acquires a right that he can transfer - either that or the ownership is created out of mere innocent possession. And how does that work with children? They're always innocent possessors, yes? And so forth. — tim wood

The thief doesn't have that right but it doesn't necessarily mean ownership isn't vested by the new buyer as long as he can demonstrate good faith and it doesn't concern a registered good.

Children cannot enter in valid contracts because they do not have the necessary will for offer and acceptance.

And there's no problem, it's been working fine for at least two centuries.

o back and read again what I wrote about good faith, because this is again a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I would think as a trained lawyer you'd actually be interested in realising there are different approaches possible — Benkei

Go back and read what I wrote acknowledging the BFP. That does nothing for the victim. Nothing. Justice doesn't care about a buyer's good faith. The buyer should beware, and if he's not, tough. His recourse is against the person he had the transaction with. In other words, I did NOT misrepresent what you said, blatantly or otherwise. I specifically calculated the good faith, as I did with Bartricks, and found it wanting.

Children cannot enter in valid contracts because they do not have the necessary will for offer and acceptance. — Benkei

You not only need offer and acceptance; you need consideration. The buyer can give money but the seller has nothing to give in return for the money. Thus, there is no contract. If the buyer gave money for something the seller did not have to sell, that is between the parties.

Based on your preconceptions of justice. In the real world it works perfectly well and answers to people's idea of justice perfectly fine. You're just to stuck in what you know which means you have trouble wrapping your mind around it. The original owner is usually left with more than just owning the original as he gets whatever amount he needs to replace it. Replacement value is usually higher than the actual value. Where it concerns unique items, the likelihood that the duty of care on the buyer is met decreases significantly.

You not only need offer and acceptance; you need consideration. — James Riley

Just no. That's a purely Anglo-Saxon thing, which everybody in the rest of the world scoffs at.

Based on your preconceptions of justice. In the real world it works perfectly well and answers to people's idea of justice perfectly fine. You're just to stuck in what you know which means you have trouble wrapping your mind around it. The original owner is usually left with more than just owning the original as he gets whatever amount he needs to replace it. Replacement value is usually higher than the actual value. Where it concerns unique items, the likelihood that the duty of care on the buyer is met decreases significantly. — Benkei

You are wrong, Benkei. It does not work perfectly well in the "real world" whatever that is. I can wrap my mind around the concept of good faith perfectly well. I just recognize the recourse is against the person who sold me something he did not own. I can't leave on the victim to deal with the thief. When you say "the owner is usually . . ." that is BS. First of all, "usually" doesn't cut it. It presumes the thief has resources to make the victim whole. Then it presumes the victim has the resources to pursue the thief. Then it presumes everything has monetary value (so I get $100.00 for the watch my dead wife gave me on our wedding day).

A society doesn't deter crime by making it lucrative. To the extent non-U.S. countries deter crime, it is by making theft unnecessary with social programs; not by protecting BFPs.

Just no. That's a purely Anglo-Saxon thing, which everybody in the rest of the world scoffs at. — Benkei

Show me where in the world a contract exists with offer and acceptance alone, but without any consideration? I want to make sure I never do business there.

Yes it is. In almost every jurisdiction in the world. Obviously you have very little experience in cross border contracting.

An accepted gift. — Benkei

That's not contract.

The thief doesn't have that right but it doesn't necessarily mean ownership isn't vested by the new buyer as long as he can demonstrate good faith and it doesn't concern a registered good.
Children cannot enter in valid contracts because they do not have the necessary will for offer and acceptance.
And there's no problem, it's been working fine for at least two centuries. — Benkei

But how does it work? Presumably I own my own stuff. If it's stolen, when or by operation of what do I cease to own it? It ends up in the hands of an innocent possessor. Does he now own it? With some obvious exceptions and qualifications, here ownership is absolute and cannot ordinarily be alienated except by express act of the owner. In The Netherlands you make it appear that ownership can be alienated by any stranger.

Maybe there is a brief boilerplate definition of ownership there that would make all of this clear. And so far this is about theft; how about items lost and then found?

And do you mean that children cannot be owners of anything? They can certainly be possessors, and by definition (I should think) innocent possessors.

There is something here I cannot quite get a good grasp on. Here, if it's mine, I have a claim against all others, and it doesn't matter your chain of possession. But where you are, apparently you do not. So, what do you have?

You not only need offer and acceptance; you need consideration.
— James Riley
Just no. That's a purely Anglo-Saxon thing, which everybody in the rest of the world scoffs at. — Benkei

In the Netherlands you can enforce a promise?

But how does it work? Presumably I own my own stuff. If it's stolen, when or by operation of what do I cease to own it? It ends up in the hands of an innocent possessor. Does he now own it? With some obvious exceptions and qualifications, here ownership is absolute and cannot ordinarily be alienated except by express act of the owner. In The Netherlands you make it appear that ownership can be alienated by any stranger. — tim wood

It recognises there are two interests and property is simply not considered so absolute I guess in continental Europe. There's a few rules actually. If you buy something that wasn't stolen (someone legally borrowed it and sold it on) the good faith works as explained. In case of theft, the original owner can reclaim his good within 3 years. However, if I bought stolen goods in a store that would normally offer such goods, that rei vindication no longer works and, provided I bought it in good faith, would become owner.

And do you mean that children cannot be owners of anything? They can certainly be possessors, and by definition (I should think) innocent possessors. — tim wood

Children cannot enter into contracts, so any contract of sale would be void and an original owner can reclaim any way.

In the Netherlands you can enforce a promise? — tim wood

Yes. Everywhere in Europe actually.

In the Netherlands you can enforce a promise?
— tim wood
Yes. Everywhere in Europe actually. — Benkei

You can enforce a promise in the U.S. too. But you need offer, acceptance and consideration. Same as in the Netherlands: https://dutch-law.com/acceptance-dutch-law.html It's just not called "consideration." But it won't be presumed people are contracting for nothing.

If you buy something that wasn't stolen (someone legally borrowed it and sold it on) the good faith works as explained. — Benkei

Being a good neighbor, you lend me - I borrow - your riding mower to mow my lawn. Fellow comes by in pick-up truck, stops and admires the mower, and says, "Nice mower, how much you want for it?" I say, "Well, new it was about $1500. It's three years old. How about $1100?" And we negotiate and I get a fair price. Into the truck and gone. (And maybe I know the guy and maybe I don't.)

I get it. Lending makes it not-so-simple. And I had a real-life experience with this when a policeman explained to me that the friend I lent a car to, who then stole it, could not be charged (at least at that moment) with car theft, but instead with unauthorized use. But a charge it was, and it empowered the police to recover the car 300 miles away, a criminal matter

Anyway, you came by looking for your mower, and I say I sold it. It's gone and you're out of luck. Would that be accurate?

I'm not arguing here. But there are square peg round hole aspects that I don't get.

Yes, let's argue with a qualified Dutch lawyer whether Dutch contract require consideration. :lol: We don't, never have and never will.

I don't know the US court system wel enough but in the UK there are no civil remedies to enforce a promise because its not a contract. You only have equitable remedies. I don't think the US has equitable courts though so how does that work? Or can you go to civil court to get an equitable remedy?

We don't, never have and never will. — Benkei

Okay, so the Dutch don't contract. Got it. Hmmm. Give me an example. "I offer something for nothing." And "I accept your offer of something for nothing." We're good. :roll:

You only have equitable remedies. I don't think the US has equitable courts though so how does that work? Or can you go to civil court to get an equitable remedy? — Benkei

Our courts act at law (Constitutional/Statutory) and in equity (Common Law, precedents).

it's ok. You already bought the stuff and did not know it. So you owe the perceived victims of the crime, which seems odd, as you likely bought the stuff from a store and had no reasonable grounds to believe any untoward act had occurred in the making of said items. Still, as you have these items, you are now indebted to the victims. As is the store you purchased from, and the shipping companies used to transport the goods, etc. Seems rather ridiculous to me. The claim is on the thief, or initial criminal, not the rest of the honest, good-faith, individuals farther down the food chain.

P.S. A gift is not a contract. Though, in the U.S., one can have detrimental reliance on the promise of a gift. So, if you promise to give me $100k for nothing, and I accept, telling you I am going to start the construction process on my new house, intending to use the gift, and you don't stop me, then I have detrimentally relied upon your promise. A court in equity would ask if it was reasonable for me to be so stupid as to believe someone was going to give me $100k for nothing. If so, then you might have to pony up. But it won't be in contract.

A gift is not a contract. If you induced me to rely on you, without consideration, we have fraud if you knew you weren't going to come through, and civil liability if you didn't know.

P.S.S. As to my alleged U.S. myopia, I think the principles I have laid out existed in the merchant bazaars around the world, long before the Spanish set foot in Hispanola.

you likely bought the stuff from a store and had no reasonable grounds to believe any untoward act had occurred in the making of said items. — Book273

That would be a question between you and the seller. Why did you buy from him at that price, instead of elsewhere at a different price? Regardless, that is no concern of the victim

Seems rather ridiculous to me. The claim is on the thief, or initial criminal, not the rest of the honest, good-faith, individuals farther down the food chain. — Book273

People who buy stolen goods aren't honest. And, even if they were, it's on them, not the victim to unscrew their mistake. And yes, it is their mistake. They should pay for their mistake. Not the victim. To make the victim pay is ridiculous and unjust.

.

No, that's not it. The Google educated. Sigh. It is 'A defense of abortion' by Thomson. An article which you wouldn't consider to have any philosophical merits, given her appeal to a series of thought experiments about cases that appear relevantly analogous to abortion cases. You'd no doubt tell her about the law on abortion and then direct her to some overlong book you've read.

Anyway, you seem to have precisely nothing to say of any philosophical interest. Stop Barty baiting and engage with the arguments.

Okay, so the Dutch don't contract. Got it. Hmmm. Give me an example. "I offer to do something for nothing." And "I accept your offer to do something for nothing." We're good. :roll: — James Riley

I guess it's hard for a US citizen to imagine things can and do work differently elsewhere. We have a different definition of contract that doesn't require consideration. You know, like the UK did before the 1500s. Or are you going to pretend they didn't have contracts before? For instance in Roman times.

And Anglo-Saxon law still has special contracts passed as deeds, which are still contracts proper. So even in your own legal system there's recognition of contracts that do not contain consideration.