AS IF you needed more evidence to the fact that law school is turning everyone into boring and technical drones. Who find strange satisfaction in nerding it up about property rights. Sample IM conversation from earlier today re: The Case Of The Purloined Crim Book.


MS: left book in libes
MS: they had it in the restack pile in the back
MS: mixed in with all the library books
annacheck83: oh yay!
annacheck83: thank goodness you found it when you did
annacheck83: found = realized
MS: yes
MS: maybe this is a little voice telling me to put my other one back
annacheck83: it is the christmas season
MS: but if I do, someone else will just take it
MS: so that seems kind of crazy
MS: as the finder of an abandoned book, I now have all the rights, even above that of the true owner
annacheck83: but was it abandoned?
annacheck83: or was it simply a bailment
MS: it was not "lost" in the bucket
MS: box
MS: it was not "placed" in the box to be recovered later
annacheck83: but it was there for a specific purpose
annacheck83: it was a gift to the volunteer place
MS: if they had left it with an authorized seller of goods of the kind, then it would be different
MS: oooh...a gift
annacheck83: and acceptance had not happened yet
MS: but there was never delivery or acceptance
MS: kind of delivery...to the box
annacheck83: wouldn't placing in the box count as delivery/
MS: i think i've head it by adverse possession by now... only i dont know how "open and notorious' the bottom of my locker
MS: is
annacheck83: the S of limitations is three months in fordham land?
MS: and it wasnt a hostile possession...it was under a mistake of right
MS: which effects adverse possession in some cases...
annacheck83: you didn't really think it was yours
MS: but i thought it was abandoned
annacheck83: in certain jurisdictions yes, you need to have mistake of right
MS: huh...this is more like the logs in crim
annacheck83: you are a theif!
MS: i thought they were abandoned books... but really they were still useful and valuable books
annacheck83: ahhh, well mistake of fact doesn't matter
annacheck83: you purposely/knowingly took the book
annacheck83: unless the statute specifically dictates a mens rea component
MS: General rule: is not guilty of a crime if her mistake of fact negates the mens rea of the offense charged.
MS: NO...i would say more reckless
annacheck83: ahhhh, should have known
annacheck83: yes yes, actually, that would be definitely reckless
MS: what is that head in the sand thing? maybe i was that
MS: willful blindness
MS: did you get all the way through attempts in crim by the way?
annacheck83: BUT THIS FUN