From: ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:06:12 +0800
To: whgiii@amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III)
Subject: Re: [CNN] Stolen Laptops and lame 'solution'
In-Reply-To: <199706120058.TAA11167@mailhub.amaranth.com>
Message-ID: <199706120659.BAA01819@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



William H. Geiger III wrote:
> In <199706112341.QAA05443@mat.wcs.net>, on 06/11/97 
>    at 05:22 PM, "Raymond Mereniuk" <raymond@wcs.net> said:
> 
> >I assume most notebooks which are recovered are found to be in the  hands
> >of a buyer rather than the person responsible for the actual  theft. 
> >But, the eventual buyer is indirectly responsible for the  initial theft
> >of the notebook.
> 
> How is the buyer responsible even indirectly?
> 
> Someone puts an add in the paper NEC Laptop $1,500. I go and check it out
> and buy it. Should it be my respocibility to call NEC over in Japan and
> find out if it was reported stolen (if they even keep such records).
> Should I have to call the manufacture every time I buy a some used
> equipment? Perhaps I should have a background check done before I buy
> anything.
> 
> If anyone is responcible for the theft other than the theif is the person
> who was so carless with their equipment.

According to the law as I understand it, the stolen goods must be
returned to the original owner with no compensation from the owner. But
the buyer can, in theory, sue the seller (thief) for breach if the
implied warranty of title.

Is that correct?

	- Igor.