Dartmouth v. Woodward? More generally, I am under the impression that in suits involving government, the government is always a named person. — tim wood

:up: Could very well be. The only contract issues I dealt with involving .gov were USFS "get out the cut" and BLM grazing allotment stuff, and I wasn't deep in that from a contract perspective. Most of my exposure was Bob vs. Joe. :grin:

The thief doesn't have that right but it doesn't necessarily mean ownership isn't vested by the new buyer as long as he can demonstrate good faith and it doesn't concern a registered good.

Children cannot enter in valid contracts because they do not have the necessary will for offer and acceptance.

And there's no problem, it's been working fine for at least two centuries. — Benkei

What if the a buys something at the store, and has it stolen from them? The person who got the stuff that was stolen from the kid would be receiving stolen goods, right? And there would be a legal obligation to return the stolen stuff to the kid?

It my intuitions are to be trusted about these cases, then, it seems that if you (in an epistemically responsible way) acquire stolen goods but then do something to them that destroys their original value, you do not owe the original owner anything. — Bartricks

That's my intuition too, but is there a problem where if we codify that we create unintended consequences?

Yes, I am generally opposed to codifying things. I believe in judging on a case by case basis - I believe that's how they did it in the Ancient world. No or few written laws - everything decided in court and no precedent set. And no lawyers.

Yes, I am generally opposed to codifying things. — Bartricks

It my intuitions are to be trusted about these cases, then, it seems that if you (in an epistemically responsible way) acquire stolen goods but then do something to them that destroys their original value, you do not owe the original owner anything.

And if you do something that reduces their original value, you only owe the remaining value, not whole of the original value.

If, however, you do not diminish its value or do anything at all with or to it, then you are obliged to return it.

By contrast, if you add value to it by incorporating it into something else or transform it in a value adding way, then you owe the original owner the value of the original, but no more than that. — Bartricks

If, however, you do not diminish its value or do anything at all with or to it, then you are obliged to return it.

By contrast, if you add value to it by incorporating it into something else or transform it in a value adding way, then you owe the original owner the value of the original, but no more than that. — Bartricks

And furthermore you use said codification to come to further conclusions

It seems to me that if correct, this has important implications where intergenerational justice is concerned. If my grandfather stole your land and built a house on it and now it is worth a great deal of money, then at most I owe you the value of the original, unimproved land, not some portion of the value that it has been increased by. — Bartricks

in cases that are barely analogous.