tl;dr: No, the dealership generally won't be able to recover the car if its act of parting with the car involved "entrusting" it to someone. That said, it can pursue Doe for fraud.
First off, when the dealership gets swindled the situation is distinctly different from one where the car is stolen from the dealership. If stolen, we'...
The most minimal elements of theft are:
An unauthorised taking or use of another's property; and
An intent to permanently deprive that person of that property or its use
You've authorised the fee as per the terms of service that you agreed to. If you didn't read the terms of service, you are deemed to have read it.
As the first element is not satisifed, ...
I'm assuming you're talking about U.S. federal bankruptcy law (Title 11).
Once bankruptcy is declared, any claims against the debtor are subject to the bankruptcy laws, and any claims against the debtor in any other court are automatically stayed under 11 USC 362.
That means if you bring an action against the debtor for conversion, a court will not hear it,...
Not really, just about every currency exchange company does this. After all, how would they make money?
The story around this is that you are being charged for a service. You're paying them for the completion of a service, where they convert the currency of the money for you. Similar things can include being charged for delivery when buying things online, ...
Here is the state of California code regarding the question. I am sure a state by state inquiry could reveal other statutes.
In California there is no specific registry but registration is performed by marking the container with a registered brand.
Alice owns the necklace
If this goes to court there are a couple of ways this could turn out. If this is settled by negotiation or ADR there are even more. For example, Alice may have always had a secret crush on Bob and may be satisfied if Bob goes on a date with her - this is a fine and dandy settlement, it’s just not one available to a court.
A court ...
No, they cannot confiscate anything.
They say they can just to minimise the percentage of people who will disobey the filming prohibition. A sensible percentage of those who would otherwise ignore the prohibition will not question the legality of possible confiscation and will just obey the rules.
This sort of thing can get muddy and turns on specifics like the form of the investment, and whether it was in a business entity controlled by Mr. X, and then embezzled by Mr. X in transferring the money to his brother (thus potentially recoverable by the investor in an action against the company through tracing despite the personal bankruptcy); or invested ...
If a good is stolen, does the previous possessor have an indefinite immediate right to possession of that good? (Until it's returned)
In all jurisdictions, civil claims (including torts) are subject to statutes of limitations. For example, in new-south-wales, this is covered by s21 of the Limitation Act 1969. The specific tort here is detention of goods ...
You can't kidnap property and the person was not detained, only the property. This is a case where property was detained contrary to the agreement of the parties, which is actionable, but is not kidnapping.
It is probably not a crime, as there was not an intent to deprive and detain people's property and the "system" was screwed up by a third party.
It is ...
Normal rules are that you cannot have good title to a thing if, somewhere down the line, there was a thief who had converted that thing from its rightful owner.
There are exceptions, the relevant one here is a negotiable instrument, which includes cheques (unless marked "Not negotiable" - now you know what it means), stocks, bonds and ... money. The legal ...