ADVERSE POSSESSION IN CHATTELS- Rethinking the Laws of Good Faith Purchase

a.       How do we know if the owner has made precautions to prevent the chattel from being stolen and has made reasonable efforts to find it?

b.      When do the authors think the owner is NOT negligent in protecting their chattels?

                                                              i.      When they follow custom that usually protects similar goods (car alarm, marking property, etc.)

c.       Nemo Dat…you can’t convey a better title than you have

d.      Doctrine of Market Overt- A title conveyed by a good faith merchant is better than the true owner

                                                              i.      This effectively gives the merchant the ability to “make” a title…better than the true owner

e.       When should the Statute of Limitation start to run?

                                                              i.      “Demand and refusal” rule- when the true owner demands the chattel AND the other refuses to give it back. This doesn’t seem to give the true owner a good incentive to go out and look for their items…or protect them for that matter

                                                            ii.      When the chattel was actually stolen, or sold by the good faith merchant

                                                          iii.      Discovery Theory: When the goods are known to be stolen or are reasonably thought to be stolen

f.       For chattels, “open and notorious” does NOT work very well…it doesn’t really give much notice to the true owner. The NOTICE function seems to be different

g.      NOT LAW: Negligence standard: Did you do everything that a reasonable person who got their goods stolen usually does? (look for item, etc.)