![]() |
![]() |
|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Register | FAQ | Donate | Members List | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,944
Thanks: 544
Thanked 570 Times in 335 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Overall, I'm not sure any common pawn shop is terribly concerned about their "public image". I'm also not sure when/if the original victim gets their kayak back. If that is expected to happen in reasonable time, then it seems like the pawn shop doesn't really owe the victim anything. You could argue that they owe a refund to the person who unknowingly purchased the stolen kayak from the pawn shop. IMO, much of this hinges on whether or not the pawn shop takes reasonable precautions in their business to ensure they are not buying stolen property. If they regularly engage in shady business, then they probably deserve to get a financial hit from this. If they operate as lawfully as reasonably possible, I don't think they are on the hook for anything. What if the process looked like this: (kayak stolen) thief sells kayak to pawnshop 1 for $100. Pawnshop 1 sells to pawnshop 2 for $150. Pawnshop 2 sells to innocent bystander for $200. Innocent bystander cleans up item and sells back to pawnshop 1 for $250 pawnshop 1 sells to new innocent bystander for $300. Kayak is finally realized to be stolen, and confiscated from buyer 2. Who owes whom money (and what amount)? Yes, this is a purposefully complicated exercise meant to attempt to illustrate a point.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here] |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|