[81643] in Cypherpunks
Re: [CNN] Stolen Laptops and lame 'solution'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Igor Chudov @ home)
Thu Jun 12 03:27:40 1997
To: whgiii@amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 01:59:01 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
In-Reply-To: <199706120058.TAA11167@mailhub.amaranth.com> from "William H. Geiger III" at Jun 11, 97 08:02:04 pm
From: ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)
Reply-To: ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)
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.
