|
I have a legal question... This may well be the stupidest damn thing
you've ever heard, but I feel it is a legitimate question about
contracts, what they mean, and who owns what afterward...
I transferred possession of a video game system to one of my friends
-- because she led me to believe (in writing) that if I did this, I
would get a lifetime of friendship out of her. Stupidly, I took her
up on her offer. Unfortunately, said friendship did not last (her
fault.)
This wasn't a legal gift -- it was a "quid pro quo" transaction. I
was led to believe I would get "something for something" -- therefore
there were, in fact, strings attached. She put herself on the hook
for the rest of her natural life -- and she did not perform the
service that she stated (in writing) that she would, so I feel that
naturally, possession of the console would revert to me.
It's kind of like an engagement ring -- you break it off, you give it
back. This wasn't like a birthday or Christmas present -- it was a
conditional proviso that represented an oath of sorts, which I have in
writing.
When it became clear that she was a goner, I went over there and tried
to enforce that agreement (which was a "blood contract" in her own
words, which I also have in writing) by asking for the system back...
and was unsuccessful. She more or less told me to go away, and
slammed the door in my face.
Then her roommate shows up. I explained to him what I was doing
there, but he said I was trespassing, and ordered me to "get off our
property!" (I subsequently found out that the property technically
isn't theirs -- neither one of them is listed as the owner of the
domicile, or the land it is on.)
She refused to surrender the system to me, even after I informed her
that I still had the bill of sale, with the serial number on it. Her
roommate scared me away, thereby helping to interfere with my rights
to my own physical goods. When I was off the property (and no longer
trespassing,) we continued to exchange words... and they threatened me
with the police and a restraining order! Since they clearly had taken
an unfair advantage by calling the cops, I left, instead of risking
arrest.
Even though they accused me of "harassment," "stalking" and
trespassing as mentioned before, my actions consisted of none of
these... because it is legal to ask for something back that is yours.
I never attempted to enter the structure proper, I never made any
threats of physical harm (I tape-recorded the encounter to prove
this,) and when asked to leave, I did.
HOWEVER, I realized a very important detail afterward... I am still
the registered owner, therefore I think it remained my property all
along -- the reasons for her possession of it notwithstanding. That
system got registered in my name with Sony the day I purchased it --
before it ever left the store, in fact. Therefore, I feel I am within
my rights, legally and morally, to take the property back.
I emailed Sony Computer Entertainment and asked them if they could
send me a copy of the registration associated with that serial
number... but they emailed me back and said the police department
would have to fax them a copy of the police report and release-of-
information form, in order for that information to be given.
The way I see it, if you possess an item whose serial number is
registered to someone else, and you refuse to surrender it to them,
YOU'RE WRONG. My receipt is clear and convincing evidence, and the
registration information could seal the deal.
Possession may be nine-tenths of the law, or so they say... but I
still have the crucial other tenth in my hands. Suggestions for me to
"get over it", or purchase another console, are not very helpful in
this case -- the subject should not have the satisfaction of keeping
an article that is in my name, and selling it to buy drugs or
something. She's the one who should have to buy another console.
What should I do now? Should I go ahead and file a police report?
Though I firmly believe I'm in the right, I'm just trying not to get
myself in trouble.
|
| |
| |
Drlove,
You lent a video game to a friend on written condition that she
remain your friend for life. You are no longer friends, and she won't
give it back.
First, a general principle:
If you lend something to someone and they refuse to give it back,
this is not a criminal matter that the police will get involved with.
Rather, it is a civil matter, a tort called "conversion". To enforce
your right to your property you will most likely have to go to court.
Above all, do not try any form of "self help" like trying to
repossess it by force: that *would* be a criminal matter and land you
in jail.
Second, do you have any evidence that you own this video game, or
that you ever owned it? For instance, is there a sales slip or
credit-card slip in your name?
If so, this would make things very much easier. The burden of proof
is then on your erstwhile friend to prove that you made a gift to
her, as opposed to lending the video game system to her. If she can't
prove it, as she almost certainly can't, then you get it back (or its
value). But again, since she refuses to return it, you'll almost
certainly have to go to court.
Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:06:51 -0400 from <drlove0378@yahoo.com>:
What should I do now? Should I go ahead and file a police report?
Though I firmly believe I'm in the right, I'm just trying not to
get myself in trouble.
Don't bother the police, because there is no criminal matter here.
1. Send a demand letter, with a copy of your contract with the
erstwhile friend, asking for the system back in the same condition as
when you gave it to her. Specify a definite date, 10 days or two
weeks from the date of mailing, for the transfer.
2. Assuming you're willing to pursue this to court if necessary,
mention in the letter that if you have not got your system back by
that date you will file in small-claims court.
3. Then, if necessary, do it.
Don't clutter up your case with irrelevancies. It doesn't matter who
owns the property where your erstwhile friend lives. It doesn't
matter whose fault it is that you are no loner friends. It may or may
not matter that you have a contract trading use of the game for
friendship. As long as you can prove you bought it, and she can't
prove you gave it to her as a gift, it's yours and you can pursue
legal means to get it back.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:06:51 -0400, drlove0378@yahoo.com wrote:
I have a legal question... This may well be the stupidest damn thing
you've ever heard, but I feel it is a legitimate question about
contracts, what they mean, and who owns what afterward...
Surely this is a joke. But if not. . .
I transferred possession of a video game system to one of my friends
-- because she led me to believe (in writing) that if I did this, I
would get a lifetime of friendship out of her. Stupidly, I took her
up on her offer. Unfortunately, said friendship did not last (her
fault.)
"Lifetime of friendship" is not a legally recognizable consideration.
As such, it can't form the basis of a contract. Whether you would
be entitled to the return of anything given under such a failed
contract would be under the principle of unjust enrichment.
This would be lawsuit material. Continuing to stalk and harass the
other person, and you seem to be describing behavior that could
be characterized as such, is extremely unwise and likely to subject
you to criminal liability.
Practical advice: get over it.
Also, nice troll.
|
| |
| |
n Mar 9, 8:06 am, drlove0...@yahoo.com wrote:
I transferred possession of a video game system to one of my friends
-- because she led me to believe (in writing) that if I did this, I
would get a lifetime of friendship out of her. Stupidly, I took her
up on her offer. Unfortunately, said friendship did not last (her
fault.)
This wasn't a legal gift -- it was a "quid pro quo" transaction.
I don't think professions of eternal friendship can form binding
consideration for a contract in any USA state, allowing you to take
back a gift if the friendship falls apart. However, since you don't
even say where you are, no one who may know differently about your
local law is going to be able to say so.
If you sued over this in MD, chances are the judge would rule that the
transfer was an unconditional gift.
was led to believe I would get "something for something" -- therefore
there were, in fact, strings attached. She put herself on the hook
for the rest of her natural life -- and she did not perform the
service that she stated (in writing) that she would, so I feel that
naturally, possession of the console would revert to me.
This is sounding weird. "The rest of her natural life?" "perform
the service?" That's not like anything I recognize as friendship.
In fact, you need to be careful the judge doesn't construe it as a
contract to commit prostitution (even if you protest it was a purely
platonic relationship).
I can't even begin to imagine the circumstances that would otherwise
lead anyone, such as your ex-friend, to enter such a "contract." If
any supposed friend of mine proposed such a thing I would run
screaming in the other direction.
Now, it might be different if this was clearly a loan, and the intent
clearly stated in writing was that the loaned item would be returned
to you if your friend ever moved away or stopped seeing you. But if
you gave it to her not expecting to get it back because she was your
friend, it's a gift.
It's kind of like an engagement ring -- you break it off, you give it
back. This wasn't like a birthday or Christmas present -- it was a
conditional proviso that represented an oath of sorts, which I have in
writing.
The reason engagement rings legally have strings attached is because
they _do_ legitimately memorialize a promise to marry, which in most
states _is_ a legally recognized commitment to enter a legally binding
partnership, and in most states the ring should be returned to sender
if the person who received the gift as a token of that promise changes
her mind. It is practically the only kind of gift where that is
true, and your "friendship gift" probably doesn't rise to that
level. The law on this does differ from state to state and YMMV.
When it became clear that she was a goner, I went over there and tried
to enforce that agreement (which was a "blood contract" in her own
words, which I also have in writing) by asking for the system back...
and was unsuccessful. She more or less told me to go away, and
slammed the door in my face.
"Blood contract?" Now you're really weirding me out. USA law
doesn't recognize any such thing. What are we talking about, some
mafia thing? That's what it sounds like.
Then her roommate shows up. I explained to him what I was doing
there, but he said I was trespassing, and ordered me to "get off our
property!"
The trespassing issue is irrelevant to the video box ownership claim,
but hopefully you didn't do anything stupid enough to compound things
worse for you while you were arguing about it.
(I subsequently found out that the property technically
isn't theirs -- neither one of them is listed as the owner of the
domicile, or the land it is on.)
That doesn't matter. It's "theirs" if they are the occupiers of that
home, and if they declare you are not welcome there, they can exclude
you from their home. A tenant of an apartment has just as much right
to exclude trespassers from his living area as does an owner of his
own home. In fact, the renter has a _greater_ right in that regard
than his landlord, who _is_ the owner of the leased property; the
tenant's right of possession is superior and exclusive, for the
duration of the lease, even to the landlord's. Thus, the tenant can
even kick his own landlord out, except for certain legitimate reasons
specified in the lease or in local law where the landlord has a right
to briefly enter the leasehold for inspections, etc. and even as to
which he has an obligation to minimize his disruption of the tenant's
right to quiet enjoyment of the leased premises.
She refused to surrender the system to me, even after I informed her
that I still had the bill of sale, with the serial number on it.
I fail to see why that is relevant, if after buying it you
subsequently gave it to her as a gift.
roommate scared me away, thereby helping to interfere with my rights
to my own physical goods. When I was off the property (and no longer
trespassing,) we continued to exchange words... and they threatened me
with the police and a restraining order!
I'm beginning to see why.
Since they clearly had taken
an unfair advantage by calling the cops, I left, instead of risking
arrest.
What unfair advantage? You asked, she said no, then she asked you to
leave. That should have been the end of the story for that evening,
and if you continued to hang around and argue with them over the issue
after they clearly said "no", then yes, you may have been harassing
them.
I'm not saying you have to ultimately take "no" for an answer. But
the way you deal with a "no" is to sue in small claims court to
reclaim the property you allege is yours, not to stand on their
doorstep arguing with them about it. Here in MD, and probably in
most states, a suit claiming the return of specific property is called
a "replevin" action and can be brought in small claims court if the
value of the property is below the jurisdictional limit of that
court. Alternatively, you could sue them at law for damages (the
dollar value of the game console you claim they misappropriated)
Even though they accused me of "harassment," "stalking" and
trespassing as mentioned before, my actions consisted of none of
these... because it is legal to ask for something back that is yours.
Ask once, OK. Stand on their doorstep and argue all night,
harassment. I don't know where in between those 2 extremes your
actual conduct fell. But clearly your ex and her roommate felt your
behavior was far enough on the negative side of that continuum for
them to feel the need to threaten to call the police to finally make
you go away.
I never attempted to enter the structure proper, I never made any
threats of physical harm (I tape-recorded the encounter to prove
this,) and when asked to leave, I did.
No you didn't. By your own words, quoted above,
1. You went over to her place and asked for the gamebox back.
2. She said no, slammed the door in your face, and told you to leave.
3. Her roommate showed up, and instead of walking away like she had
already asked, you stayed around on their doorstep after that and
argued again with her roommate.
4. The roommate said you were trespassing and ordered you to get off
their property. This is the second time you were
|
| |
| |
drlove0378@yahoo.com wrote in news:lkk7t3ptepnh0qjgo2sthc5af847b54q7d@
4ax.com:
I have a legal question... This may well be the stupidest damn thing
you've ever heard, but I feel it is a legitimate question about
contracts, what they mean, and who owns what afterward...
I transferred possession of a video game system to one of my friends
-- because she led me to believe (in writing) that if I did this, I
would get a lifetime of friendship out of her. Stupidly, I took her
up on her offer. Unfortunately, said friendship did not last (her
fault.)
This wasn't a legal gift -- it was a "quid pro quo" transaction. I
was led to believe I would get "something for something" -- therefore
there were, in fact, strings attached. She put herself on the hook
for the rest of her natural life -- and she did not perform the
service that she stated (in writing) that she would, so I feel that
naturally, possession of the console would revert to me.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm gonna guess you don't have an enforceable
contract. Considering that most states have abolished breach of promise
(i.e., backing out of a proposal of marriage), I somehow doubt that
trying to bind someone to lifetime friendship is going to comport with
public policy.
It's kind of like an engagement ring -- you break it off, you give it
back.
Yeah, you're right, except for the fact that it's nothing like an
engagement ring, which is a gift. You break it off, you're under no
obligation to give it back.
This wasn't like a birthday or Christmas present -- it was a
conditional proviso that represented an oath of sorts, which I have in
writing.
<sad tale snipped>
What should I do now? Should I go ahead and file a police report?
No, this isn't a criminal matter. You can make a case that you were
merely lending your ex-friend your property and now you want it back
because, well, you don't really need a reason. Talk to a lawyer and ask
him whether it would help to file a writ of replevin.
Though I firmly believe I'm in the right, I'm just trying not to get
myself in trouble.
You wouldn't just be funnin' us, would you?
|
| |
| |
Doc,
I transferred possession of a video game system to one of my friends
-- because she led me to believe (in writing) that if I did this, I
would get a lifetime of friendship out of her. Stupidly, I took her
up on her offer. Unfortunately, said friendship did not last (her
fault.)
This doesn't sound like an enforceable contract.
This wasn't a legal gift -- it was a "quid pro quo" transaction.
That's for a judge to decide, should you take this to court. I don't see
a transaction, I see a gift.
Then her roommate shows up. I explained to him what I was doing
there, but he said I was trespassing, and ordered me to "get off our
property!" (I subsequently found out that the property technically
isn't theirs -- neither one of them is listed as the owner of the
domicile, or the land it is on.)
If they are tenants then they certainly may throw you off of "their"
property. Do not trespass again.
Even though they accused me of "harassment," "stalking" and
trespassing as mentioned before, my actions consisted of none of
these... because it is legal to ask for something back that is yours.
I never attempted to enter the structure proper, I never made any
threats of physical harm (I tape-recorded the encounter to prove
this,) and when asked to leave, I did.
HOWEVER, I realized a very important detail afterward... I am still
the registered owner, therefore I think it remained my property all
along -- the reasons for her possession of it notwithstanding. That
system got registered in my name with Sony the day I purchased it --
before it ever left the store, in fact. Therefore, I feel I am within
my rights, legally and morally, to take the property back.
This doesn't seem reasonable. When property changes hands outside of the
retail market such "registration" does not. I don't see therefore that
registration equals ownership.
The way I see it, if you possess an item whose serial number is
registered to someone else, and you refuse to surrender it to them,
YOU'RE WRONG. My receipt is clear and convincing evidence, and the
registration information could seal the deal.
Your receipt shows that you purchased the item but does not show whether
or not you gave it away. Your post here argues that you did give it away. I
doubt that your expectation of a lifetime's worth of friendship is
reasonable. Neither friendship of lifetime seem to be defined for one thing.
Possession may be nine-tenths of the law, or so they say...
Get the quote correct, possession is nine points not nine-tenths.
You don't want to be advised to forget it so I'll advise you to file in
small claims court. That will cost about $100. Then the judge will tell you
to forget it, a cheap lesson in life
Good luck,
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
In article <lkk7t3ptepnh0qjgo2sthc5af847b54q7d@4ax.com>,
drlove0378@yahoo.com wrote:
What should I do now? Should I go ahead and file a police report?
Though I firmly believe I'm in the right, I'm just trying not to get
myself in trouble.
Simply file a case in small claims court for the value of
the machine and court costs. Let the judge figure it out.
No need for any legal help, just bring your paperwork and
show it to the judge.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
Mike Jacobs wrote:
On Mar 9, 8:06 am, drlove0...@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't think professions of eternal friendship can form binding
consideration for a contract in any USA state, allowing you to take
back a gift if the friendship falls apart.
I didn't initially answer because the 'friend for life' business seemed
to me to be a cover for what the contract really stated. I assumed it
was for sexual favors.
If I'm wrong, I'd like the OP to state what exactly the written
agreement defines as being a 'friend for life'.
I've snipped the balance of your well reasoned post. I see you took this
a bit more seriously than I did. I'd also be curious to hear the ages of
the contractors.
-paul
ianal
|
| |
| |
In article <lu7at3h86lq9ts12kl14cn6u7fqq0vnemg@4ax.com>,
David L. Martel <marte005@earthlink.net> wrote:
Your receipt shows that you purchased the item but does not show whether
or not you gave it away. Your post here argues that you did give it away.
If the contract is invalid, it was not given away.
I doubt that your expectation of a lifetime's worth of friendship is
reasonable. Neither friendship of lifetime seem to be defined for one
thing.
Friendship isn't, but "lifetime" has a simple well-known meaning. It
lasts from now (or then) until one of them dies.
You don't want to be advised to forget it so I'll advise you to file in
small claims court. That will cost about $100.
Much less, last time I filed.
Seth
|
| |
| |
HOWEVER, I realized a very important detail afterward... I am still
the registered owner, therefore I think it remained my property all
along -- the reasons for her possession of it notwithstanding. That
system got registered in my name with Sony the day I purchased it --
before it ever left the store, in fact. Therefore, I feel I am within
my rights, legally and morally, to take the property back.
This doesn't seem reasonable. When property changes hands outside of the
retail market such "registration" does not. I don't see therefore that
registration equals ownership.
In a Video Game Title State, the original poster might have a claim,
although I doubt there are any such states. It's different with
automobiles, which require titles in many states, and real estate.
The way I see it, if you possess an item whose serial number is
registered to someone else, and you refuse to surrender it to them,
YOU'RE WRONG. My receipt is clear and convincing evidence, and the
registration information could seal the deal.
If the person who has it claims they bought it at a retail store
new, your registration proves that they are lying. If they claim
that you gave it to them, the registration proves nothing either
way. Is it even *possible* to re-register the game to someone else?
To the best of my knowledge there are no Video Game Title States.
Your receipt shows that you purchased the item but does not show whether
or not you gave it away. Your post here argues that you did give it away. I
doubt that your expectation of a lifetime's worth of friendship is
reasonable. Neither friendship of lifetime seem to be defined for one thing.
Um, *WHOSE* lifetime? I have to wonder if one or the other parties
to this argument might consider this issue to be an escape clause
and try invoking it with murder.
Considering some of the problems with theft of iPhones, I wonder which
state will be the first to become an iPhone Title State.
|
| |
| |
In article <ju7at39c0oa947pge0itd8nqme9ikus6k3@4ax.com>,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
1. Send a demand letter, with a copy of your contract with the
erstwhile friend, asking for the system back in the same condition as
when you gave it to her. Specify a definite date, 10 days or two
weeks from the date of mailing, for the transfer.
Why worry about the contract? Why not just "You are currently in
possession of my property (description). You must return it within 10
days from (date)."
Then, when it's not returned, sue for its value.
If the ex-friend wants to claim the contract applies, then the
ex-friend can explain it to the judge. Since the contract doesn't
help OP, there's no reason to bring it up.
2. Assuming you're willing to pursue this to court if necessary,
mention in the letter that if you have not got your system back by
that date you will file in small-claims court.
Or, just file after the deadline you gave.
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <9dpct3ldtrrlrqeavriea1e0opmlllnvlm@4ax.com>,
Gordon Burditt <gordonb.um7gi@burditt.org> wrote:
If the person who has it claims they bought it at a retail store
new, your registration proves that they are lying. If they claim
that you gave it to them, the registration proves nothing either
way. Is it even *possible* to re-register the game to someone else?
To the best of my knowledge there are no Video Game Title States.
If I buy something to give as a gift, I don't fill out the paperwork
in my name first, I let the recipient have the warrantee. (Of course,
that won't apply if I give it away after I use it for a year and get
bored with it.)
So if the recipient here claims the console was a gift given on a date
very shortly after the purchase, I'd consider the registration to be
evidence against that claim.
Seth
|
| |
| |
Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:58:14 -0400 from Seth <sethb@panix.com>:
In article <ju7at39c0oa947pge0itd8nqme9ikus6k3@4ax.com>,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Why worry about the contract? Why not just "You are currently in
possession of my property (description). You must return it within 10
days from (date)."
Yes, I think that is cleaner. "You have my property, please return
it now." It's not in the OP's interest to bring up this contract of
friendship, whether it's a valid contract or not. I believe I said
that elsewhere in my article, but maybe I only thought I did. :-)
As always, I wonder what we're not being told. For someone over the
age of about nine to write a "friends forever" contract just doesn't
ring true somehow. I wonder, for instance, if the OP is using
"friend" as a euphemism for a sexual relationship, in which case the
transfer of the video game might technically make it a contract of
prostitution.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote in
news:tcpct3hn30g9poah864njnt7rtgkopdumr@4ax.com:
Mike Jacobs wrote:
I didn't initially answer because the 'friend for life' business seemed
to me to be a cover for what the contract really stated. I assumed it
was for sexual favors.
That would be a friend with benefits for life. Or maybe a friend for life
with benefits. I'm not sure which.
If I'm wrong, I'd like the OP to state what exactly the written
agreement defines as being a 'friend for life'.
I've snipped the balance of your well reasoned post. I see you took this
a bit more seriously than I did. I'd also be curious to hear the ages of
the contractors.
-paul
ianal
|
| |
| |
n Mar 10, 7:48=A0am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
If you lend something to someone and they refuse to give it back,
this is not a criminal matter that the police will get involved with.
Rather, it is a civil matter, a tort called "conversion". To enforce
your right to your property you will most likely have to go to court.
Others wrote similarly.
I thought in many jurisdictions there were statutory crimes of
"larceny by deceit", "embezzlement" and other crimes involving the
illegal disposition or conversion of goods lawfully obtained.
For instance in the New York State penal code:
=A7 155.05 Larceny; defined.
1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with
intent to
deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself
or to
a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such
property
from an owner thereof.
2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or
withholding of
another's property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision
one of
this section, committed in any of the following ways:
(a) By conduct heretofore defined or known as common law
larceny by
trespassory taking, common law larceny by trick,
embezzlement, or
obtaining property by false pretenses;
=2E..
(d) By false promise.
A person obtains property by false promise when, pursuant to a
scheme
to defraud, he obtains property of another by means of a
representation,
express or implied, that he or a third person will in the future
engage
in particular conduct, and when he does not intend to engage in
such
conduct or, as the case may be, does not believe that the third
person
intends to engage in such conduct.
In any prosecution for larceny based upon a false promise,
the
defendant's intention or belief that the promise would not be
performed
may not be established by or inferred from the fact alone that
such
promise was not performed. Such a finding may be based only
upon
evidence establishing that the facts and circumstances of the case
are
wholly consistent with guilty intent or belief and wholly
inconsistent
with innocent intent or belief, and excluding to a moral certainty
every
hypothesis except that of the defendant's intention or belief that
the
promise would not be performed;
Under 155.05(2)d it would matter if she intended to be friends for
life, but it is certainly criminal, as would the simpler withholding
under paragraph (1), the more normal case of my employer hands me a
computer and says "Here, use this to do your work while you work here"
or "Deliver this to this third party".
Similarly Texas Penal Code:
=A7 31.02. CONSOLIDATION OF THEFT OFFENSES. Theft as
defined in Section 31.03 constitutes a single offense superseding
the separate offenses previously known as theft, theft by false
pretext, CONVERSION BY A BAILEE, theft from the person,
shoplifting, acquisition of property by threat, swindling,
swindling by worthless check, embezzlement, extortion, receiving
or concealing embezzled property, and receiving or concealing
stolen property.
(emphasis added)
California Penal Code:
PENAL CODE SECTION 484-502.9
484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall
fraudulently APPROPRIATE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN
ENTRUSTED TO HIM or
her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of
money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures
others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character
and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby
fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or
obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.
(Emphasis added)
490a. Wherever any law or statute of this state refers to or
mentions larceny, embezzlement, or stealing, said law or statute
shall hereafter be read and interpreted as if the word "theft" were
substituted therefor.
503. Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a
person to whom it has been intrusted.
507. Every person intrusted with any property as bailee, tenant, or
lodger, or with any power of attorney for the sale or transfer
thereof, who fraudulently converts the same or the proceeds thereof
to his own use, or secretes it or them with a fraudulent intent to
convert to his own use, is guilty of embezzlement.
509. A distinct act of taking is not necessary to constitute
embezzlement.
But
511. Upon any indictment for embezzlement, it is a sufficient
defense that the property was appropriated openly and avowedly, and
under a claim of title preferred in good faith, even though such
claim is untenable. But this provision does not excuse the unlawful
retention of the property of another to offset or pay demands held
against him.
On the other hand,
512. The fact that the accused intended to restore the property
embezzled, is no ground of defense or mitigation of punishment, if it
has not been restored before an information has been laid before a
magistrate, or an indictment found by a grand jury, charging the
commission of the offense.
513. Whenever, prior to an information laid before a magistrate, or
an indictment found by a grand jury, charging the commission of
embezzlement, the person accused voluntarily and actually restores or
tenders restoration of the property alleged to have been embezzled,
or any part thereof, such fact is not a ground of defense, but it
authorizes the court to mitigate punishment, in its discretion.
514. Every person guilty of EMBEZZLEMENT IS PUNISHABLE IN THE
MANNER PRESCRIBED FOR THEFT of property of the value or kind
embezzled; and where the property embezzled is an evidence of debt or
right of action, the sum due upon it or secured to be paid by it
must be taken as its value; if the embezzlement or defalcation is of
the public funds of the United States, or of this state, or of any
county or municipality within this state, the offense is a felony,
and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison; and the person
so convicted is ineligible thereafter to any office of honor, trust,
or profit in this state.
OP wrote:
I transferred possession of a video game system to one of my friends
Note he did not say he transferred title, which exists whether or not
title for that kind of thing is registered.
This wasn't a legal gift -- it was a "quid pro quo" transaction. I
was led to believe I would get "something for something" -- therefore
there were, in fact, strings attached.
Here it gets more complicated, and I have no idea if or when title
transferred, but I disagree that it can't be criminal. A lot would
come down to that (who owns it now) and the erstwhile friend's state
of mind at the time she agreed to this.
Mike Jacobs wrote:
} Now, it might be different if this was clearly a loan, and the
intent
} clearly stated in writing was that the loaned item would be
returned
} to you if your friend ever moved away or stopped seeing you. But
if
} you gave it to her not expecting to get it back because she was
your
} friend, it's a gift.
What if the contract were not for bff, but for mowing
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:01:44 -0400, David Chesler
<chesler@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
. . . .
What if the contract were not for bff, but for mowing his lawn once
per week between June 1 and August 31 of the current year? If the ex
does not fulfill that contract, is it a gift?
There you have a hawk, a hound, or a robe. It's an enforceable
contract at that point, but probably would be enforceable by damages.
Daniel Reitman
|
| |
| |
If the person who has it claims they bought it at a retail store
new, your registration proves that they are lying. If they claim
that you gave it to them, the registration proves nothing either
way. Is it even *possible* to re-register the game to someone else?
To the best of my knowledge there are no Video Game Title States.
If I buy something to give as a gift, I don't fill out the paperwork
in my name first, I let the recipient have the warrantee. (Of course,
that won't apply if I give it away after I use it for a year and get
bored with it.)
That also doesn't apply if they register it to you at the checkout
register, which I believe the original poster says they did, as the
serial number was printed on the receipt. It's rather hard to
refuse if (a) you bought it with a credit card or debit card, thereby
revealing your name and (b) they scan the serial number at the
register, and (c) their data systems are set up to do automatic
registration. This sort of thing seems to be common at stores that
sell consumer electronics.
So if the recipient here claims the console was a gift given on a date
very shortly after the purchase, I'd consider the registration to be
evidence against that claim.
|
| |
| |
So if the recipient here claims the console was a gift given on a date
|
| |
| |
In article <velst3h7oo78rb1r6d44oqb7cgs2e4ujav@4ax.com>,
<drlove0378@yahoo.com> wrote:
The serial number is
also linked to my registration. But the representative I e-mailed
said they'd have to see a police report to release the registration
information. But since this matter is civil (not criminal, as I just
learned,) I guess they'd need to be faxed a subpoena (or the writ of
replevin) for that. I don't know.
It's quite possible to file a police report for something that isn't a
criminal matter (and for something that's too minor for the police to
care about). I once filed one for a lost cellphone, because the
insurance company needed the report in order to reimburse me.
Seth
|
| |
| |
|
