This is an interesting precedent

Very interesting Trotter, thanks for posting.

I think this would set a very dangerous precedent. 12 year old takes book, never returns it, Mum gives stack of books and old DVDs to Oxfam, book takes its journey to auction and ultimately someone who did nothing wrong loses a fortune.

It is unfortunate, but in that scenario the book technically does still belong to the library.

Mr. Underhill wrote:

It is unfortunate, but in that scenario the book technically does still belong to the library.

If the library wrote the book off without reporting it stolen then I doubt a court would agree.

A stolen book would be a magistrates matter and it would have to prosecuted within 6 months.

I think this will probably end up in the courts, but the seller in this case may not own the title to the book.

Moreover, an auctioneer may be liable if he/she conducts auction without knowledge of the principal’s lack of title or authority to sell, although he/she acts in good faith. An auctioneer may be liable for selling property with defective title, although he/she was conducting an auction in compliance with the principal’s specific instructions. Parker v. P & N Recovery of N.Y., 182 Misc. 2d 342, 346 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1999). An auctioneer’s good faith and his/her lack of knowledge is not a defense in an action for conversion. State Sec. Co. v. Svoboda, 172 Neb. 526, 530 (Neb. 1961). Thus, auctioneers face substantial liability as to the sales and must take appropriate steps to assure themselves of title to the asset being sold.

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/law-auctions

onthetrail wrote:

Mr. Underhill wrote:

It is unfortunate, but in that scenario the book technically does still belong to the library.

If the library wrote the book off without reporting it stolen then I doubt a court would agree.

A stolen book would be a magistrates matter and it would have to prosecuted within 6 months.

Right, statutes of limitations exist for this very reason. I guess this is the case that will define these boundaries if they're not already drawn. I'm rooting for the seller, rather than the library in this case.

Ya, I'm aware of all the legal wrangling that will surely ensue around this item. However I just think if the book was donated to the library, never returned, and then shows up on the second hand market...it should revert back to the library.

Like was said...unless the library doesn't report it stolen.

Mr. Underhill wrote:

Ya, I'm aware of all the legal wrangling that will surely ensue around this item. However I just think if the book was donated to the library, never returned, and then shows up on the second hand market...it should revert back to the library.

Like was said...unless the library doesn't report it stolen.

So, everyone with overdue library books should have a criminal record for stealing property? I am just not sure it is feasible for a library to file a stolen property report for overdue books. Especially, when the book likely was checked out (and not returned) reasonably close to when it was released and had no "market value". If the library still had a £50,000 book in general circulation for someone to check out, that's another issue entirely.

Maybe I'm too idealistic

Urulókë wrote:

Especially, when the book likely was checked out (and not returned) reasonably close to when it was released and had no "market value".

Do we have any idea whether this was the case?

Urulókë wrote:

If the library still had a £50,000 book in general circulation for someone to check out, that's another issue entirely.

Indeed it is. It would be on them to know what they have and, well, not lend such a book out.