Unclaimed Personal And Vested Property Act â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Unclaimed Personal And Vested Property Act? Answer: Introduction The ownership of both tangible and non-tangible property is one of the main reasons for the disputes among individuals. The progress of time has seen the upgrading of various rules and regulations for helping and rendering justice to such disputes and cases (Anderson Huggins, 2013). Several disputes arise due to the claiming of missing property, lost and found. Some disputes also arise due to the attempt to injure others financially by means of false promises. The means to solve these issues is through thorough investigation and taking reference from the respective issued laws (Hart Green, 2012). This report deals with two case studies, one being the ownership of a lost property, the other being a case of mutual contract breach. It further deals with the legal convulsions that might arise in case of the instances. The advocacy has been done from both parties in case of the second case study. The purpose of this report is to investigate into the case studies and provide the legal implications that might arise and the possible solutions. In this case study, Bonzi found a necklace while staying in a hotel that is owned by Alpha Corp. Now the question arises about the legal ownership of the necklace. This case falls under the Canadian Property Law Act that governs regarding the rightful ownership and tenancy of private property. Since the owner did not leave the possession intentionally, the possession has been misplaced. The property being tangible in nature and found by someone else, Bonzi cannot keep the property despite being the finder, under the Canadian Law of finders and keepers, since the law states that a finder can only keep the property if it is found in nature. Exception being that the property is not found in some elses land (Bowal Kuzma, 2014).. Supposedly, if Bonzi does not inform about the found necklace, it can be classified under the Canadian Penal Code for an Act of Theft, since Bonzi is only the finder and not the owner. Since necklace was found in the hotel premise owned by Alpha Corp, it is necessary to hand over the property to the hotel authorities under the Canadian Act of Unclaimed property, until and unless the original owner shows up to claim the necklace (Bridge, 2015). In case the original owner shows up to claim the property, he/she is liable to show valid proof in order to claim the property under the Canadian law of Unclaimed Personal Property and Vested Property Act, Section 47. Given that the owner of the lost necklace is oblivious, yet under the Canadian law of Unclaimed Property Act part 3, the holder of the lost property has to make possible contact with the viable owner within a time limit of 6 months. Despite efforts to contact with the possible owner, if the property is not claimed within 12 months, the property is declared as Unclaimed under the Canadian law of Unclaimed Property Act. The property can treated as an income of the holder if it is not claimed within the time span of custody or the law prevents the holder from treating the property as a income or bounty. In the other way around, the necklace can be handed over to the federal authorities for thorough investigation regarding the ownership of the necklace. It would be helpful regarding finding the rightful owner of the necklace, in case the owner turns up to the federal authorities for the retrieval of the lost necklace. The second case deals with two companies producing the same kind of goods had a mutual understanding to share the profit of the business. The director of sales of MC Electric Inc, Dortmund made a mutual understanding with GB Circuits Co. another supplier, to share the profit with GB circuits since GB circuits failed to fulfill the complete tender order of A-Tel, a telephone producing company. The claim of compensation cannot be made on the ground that GB Circuits have shared the offer with MC Electric Inc and successfully allowing them to bid for the rest of the order. As per the case study, if MC does not wish to share the profit quota, GB can file against Dortmund under Canadian Tort Act for making false claims of sharing profit with GB Circuits (Wright, 2017). GB Circuits cannot file any case under Canadian Contract Law against MC Electric Inc for refusing to pay the profit since no official contract was signed on behalf of MC Electric Inc (Bix Bix, 2012). In case, Dortmund refuses the entire mutual agreement, the directors of MC Electric Inc cannot file against Dortmund under breach of contract with company for implying unfair means to achieve target. Since the agreement was made verbally and not contractually, the chance of getting the promised amount by GB Circuits is quite difficult (Fried, 2015). This due to fact that the tender applied by MC on behalf of GB Circuits incomplete tender must have been made legally and not verbally (Cartwright, 2016). The mere cause of allowing to bid is not a strong ground to claim the profit and MC Electric Inc is also not liable to pay since it made the profit on legal basis. The only ground Dortmund can be sued by GB Circuits is to file against him, under Canadian Tort Act for trying to financially injure GB Circuits. In the process, if Dortmund is found guilty, he can probably be charged under the Canadian Contract Act by MC Electric Inc for breaching of contract and made to compensate the amount on his own terms and not out of the companys profits. Conclusion The report concludes the two case studies where in the first case, the finder cannot keep the necklace since the finder finds it on another land apart nature, under the Canadian Act of Finders and Keeper as unless it is to be kept a secret and it falls under the Canadian law for an Act of theft. The hotel authorities is the rightful holder can only hold the property until and unless the rightful owner is informed or comes to claim with adequate proof under the Canadian Law of Unclaimed Personal Property Act. In the second case, the Sales president of MC Electric Inc can be filed against by the other competitor company GB Circuits for wrongfully making false claims to share profit with it, without the knowledge of his own company. He can be filed under the Canadian Tort Act and if he is proven guilty, he can be probably charged under Canadian Contract Act for using unfair means to generate revenue. Reference Anderson, T. L., Huggins, L. E. (2013).Property rights: A practical guide to freedom and prosperity. Hoover press. Bix, B., Bix, B. H. (2012).Contract law: rules, theory, and context. Cambridge University Press. Bowal, P., Kuzma, D. (2014). All is Not Lost: The Law of Lost and Found. Bridge, M. (2015).Personal property law. OUP Oxford. Cartwright, J. (2016).Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer. Bloomsbury Publishing. Fried, C. (2015).Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA. Hart, H. L. A., Green, L. (2012).The concept of law. Oxford University Press. Wright, J. (2017).Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing.