Hmmm so he unknowingly threw away the drive, and thus did not give explicit consent, but the dump did not tale it by force, nor did anyone else. Who has the rightful claim on this property? Furthermore, this seems like a matter that would be best resolved by insurance companies and arbitrators.
Discussion
Why do you assume that one must knowingly throw something away for it to become the property of someone else? I disagree with that assumption. The court seems to have made the correct decision given this information. He gave explicit consent when he dumped the stuff in the trash, fully understanding how trash works. It was his duty to know what was being tossed out and failed in that duty.
I also doubt a drive from that year was so easily missed, but that's irrelevant.
What the hell are you talking about? I said no such thing. I merely restated the facts and posed the QUESTION of who owns the thing.
Your entire comment about unknowingly throwing it away equating to lack of explicit consent implies that such consent might not be enough consent for the dump to own it. That is an assumption without which there would be no question.
Write more carefully.
I think I read it was his now ex gf that threw it away, possibly with his permission
Makes no difference in my opinion.
That is an absence of explicit consent. I was right. But how explicit does the consent need to be, and how informed? That is key to the question. I very clearly did not assume that there **was** a _lack_ of consent.
Think more carefully.
The only one who definitely doesn't have a rightful claim is the judge/court because their decisions are enforced with violence.
For sure. nostr:nprofile1qqs0agvxc2jx0rdugdmsfmkjzcyyd698s8jlk9c9d6dmxvuyp4daauspzdmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ue0safgzv makes a good case that the dump owns it legitimately.
I'm not sure the dump necessarily cares about the stuff in the dump. My suspicion is that the root issue is having people come onto their property to disrupt operations to search for items. But the same property rights are applicable regardless.
Yeah it's all up to whoever is the legitimate owner of the dump, I think.
The court didn't make a claim against property. They mediated a property dispute that would otherwise have to be settled by some means, which was historically violence.