Reference no: EM132242226
The Big Thing: Assume that in the mid 1800’s a passenger ship sank during a storm in the Atlantic Ocean, less than 200 miles off the east coast of the United States. Many of the passengers were gold miners, bringing gold from California. It was estimated that two million dollars of gold was lost when the ship went down. Several insurance companies (including underwriters and others) paid claims for the lost gold. In 1986 a corporate group used new technology to discover the gold, now estimated to be worth one billion dollars. The corporate group claimed ownership of the ship and its contents. The insurance companies (and others) that had paid out claims on the lost gold, claimed they owned the gold. Please do your best to answer the questions without additional research. Answers will vary, and that’s ok, as long as you support your answer. You can make counter arguments when you reply to your classmates.
Based on these facts and your textbook, explain whether the gold is mislaid, lost, or abandoned property.
Explain whether your answer to part (a) would change if you knew that the insurance companies had destroyed all their records concerning the claims, and that the insurance companies had made no effort to find the lost gold once the technology became available to do so.
Based on what you have learned about mislaid, lost, and abandoned property, explain who you believe should be awarded ownership of the gold.
Assume that the trial court applied the “common law of finds” (the court used the common law regarding mislaid, lost, and abandoned property, just as you were asked to do above.) On appeal, the appellate court stated the correct law to apply is the “common law of salvage.” Read the link below to understand salvage. Explain what the corporate group who found the gold is entitled to as “salvors” of the gold.
In your opinion, explain which law seems fairer to you in this particular situation where the corporate group found the gold: the law of finds or the law of salvage?
As a matter of public policy, if we want mariners to help other mariners who are in trouble at sea, which law is more likely to elicit a helpful response at sea, regardless of the value of the ship, the cargo, or the environment being saved?
Based on what you now know, why do you think the appellate court applied the law of salvage rather than the law of finds?