Portfolio 3:
(A)-The issue relating to this case is that there is treasure found by an individual
(Hari), who would like to keep what he had found because it looked very expensive.
The law that governs found chattels is ‘The Treasure Act 1996’. The Treasure Act
1996 came to force on the 4th of July 1996 and was designed to deal with finds of
treasure in England. This act relates to the case study as there is a difference of
opinion relating to what had been found and this act will clear up any
misunderstandings. Once Hari and Sohaib read this act they will find this law
stipulates that they must report the lost treasure to the local coroner within 14 days
of finding it. An example of another case that is similar is the ‘Bridges v
Hawkesworth’ case. This case was situated in a fish and chip shop where there was
a parcel of money on the shop floor. The owners believed the parcel was their
money as it was in their shop whereas the finder believed it was theirs. The end
outcome of this case held that the shop owner did not exert control as it was in the
public area of the shop. Whereas it could be argued that Hari should not keep
possession over the chattel due to the fact that they must follow the guidelines that
are put in place and take the legal route in this state.
(B)-The issue relating to this case is that there is treasure found at Raymond’s
property which possibly could be nearly 2000 years old. The individual who found the
treasure (whilst helping Raymond dig in his garden to plant some vegetables) is
Casper who is Reymond’s cousin. The law that governs found chattels is ‘The
Treasure Act 1996’. The Treasure Act 1996 was an act proposed to deal with the
finds of treasure in England, Wales and Northern Island. This act relates to the case
study as in the Treasure Act 1996 it declares that an item, not a coin but has 10 per
cent weight when found1, is one of at least two coins in the same field which are at
least 3000 years old at that time have a percentage of metal in 2 and when found, is
one of at least ten coins in the same find which are at least 300 years old at the
time3. An example of another case that is similar is the ‘Tamworth Industries Ltd. V
Attorney General’ case. In this case money was found in a box under the floor of a
house, the police then took this box as evidence for a crime that was committed but
failed, which then resulted in Tamworth trying to get the money back. The outcome
1
Treasure Act 1996, S1, (a), (i)
2
Treasure Act 1996, S1, (a), (ii)
3
Treasure Act 1996, S1, (a), (iii)
, of this case was that Tamworth won the claim and money as the rightful owner of the
treasure. What Casper found contained a number of coins which looked as if they
were over 2000 years old and a bronze necklace. Hence, indicating that they have
met the requirements for them to be classed as treasure.
(C)- When a treasure is found, it vests, subject to prior interests and rights 4 in the
franchisee, if there is one;5 otherwise, in the Crown6. So, if the necklace and the
coins declared to be treasure, then the individual/state who will be entitled to a
treasure will be the Crown, but the reward will go to the finder, and had permission to
be on the land and acted in good faith, a person or organisation with freehold on the
land or someone who occupies the lad as a tenant of the owner 7. So, in this case
would go to Casper because he had permission to be on Raymond’s property and
it’ll be Casper’s choice whether he wants to share his reward with his cousin.
(D)- One rule of interpretation of statutes that would be useful in interpreting the
Treasure Act is the Literal Rule. The Literal Rule is the first rule that is applied by
judges, this means that actions should only be taken upon what the law precisely
states and not what it could be interpreted as. An example of a case that used the
literal rule is the ‘Fisher v Bell case (1960)8’. In this case James Bell who was a
shopkeeper displayed a flick knife in his shop window. Under the Offence Weapons
Act19619 it is offense to sell offensive weapons, display them, manufacture them and
offer them for hire. When Bell was taken to trail it was decided that he will not be
convicted as the item was not for sale as the intention wasn’t there and it was
actually an invitation to treat and this is how the literal rule was applied. Another rule
of interpretation of statutes that would be useful in interpreting the Treasure Act is
the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule in its easiest connotation, means ‘do unto others
as you would have them do unto you’. You should treat others as you would like to
be treated yourself. A generic example would be that, if you would like to be treated
with respect then you should treat others with respect too. An example of a case that
used the golden rule is the ‘R v Allen (1872)’. In this case the defendant was charged
with the offence of bigamy (which is the offence of marrying an individual whilst
already married to another person). Under the Offences Against the Person Act
4
Treasure Act 1996, S4, (1)
5
Treasure Act 1996, S4 (a)
6
Treasure Act 1996, S4 (b)
7
https://www.gov.uk/treasure
8
Fisher v Bell (1960) QB 394
9
Offensive Weapons Act 1961, S1
(A)-The issue relating to this case is that there is treasure found by an individual
(Hari), who would like to keep what he had found because it looked very expensive.
The law that governs found chattels is ‘The Treasure Act 1996’. The Treasure Act
1996 came to force on the 4th of July 1996 and was designed to deal with finds of
treasure in England. This act relates to the case study as there is a difference of
opinion relating to what had been found and this act will clear up any
misunderstandings. Once Hari and Sohaib read this act they will find this law
stipulates that they must report the lost treasure to the local coroner within 14 days
of finding it. An example of another case that is similar is the ‘Bridges v
Hawkesworth’ case. This case was situated in a fish and chip shop where there was
a parcel of money on the shop floor. The owners believed the parcel was their
money as it was in their shop whereas the finder believed it was theirs. The end
outcome of this case held that the shop owner did not exert control as it was in the
public area of the shop. Whereas it could be argued that Hari should not keep
possession over the chattel due to the fact that they must follow the guidelines that
are put in place and take the legal route in this state.
(B)-The issue relating to this case is that there is treasure found at Raymond’s
property which possibly could be nearly 2000 years old. The individual who found the
treasure (whilst helping Raymond dig in his garden to plant some vegetables) is
Casper who is Reymond’s cousin. The law that governs found chattels is ‘The
Treasure Act 1996’. The Treasure Act 1996 was an act proposed to deal with the
finds of treasure in England, Wales and Northern Island. This act relates to the case
study as in the Treasure Act 1996 it declares that an item, not a coin but has 10 per
cent weight when found1, is one of at least two coins in the same field which are at
least 3000 years old at that time have a percentage of metal in 2 and when found, is
one of at least ten coins in the same find which are at least 300 years old at the
time3. An example of another case that is similar is the ‘Tamworth Industries Ltd. V
Attorney General’ case. In this case money was found in a box under the floor of a
house, the police then took this box as evidence for a crime that was committed but
failed, which then resulted in Tamworth trying to get the money back. The outcome
1
Treasure Act 1996, S1, (a), (i)
2
Treasure Act 1996, S1, (a), (ii)
3
Treasure Act 1996, S1, (a), (iii)
, of this case was that Tamworth won the claim and money as the rightful owner of the
treasure. What Casper found contained a number of coins which looked as if they
were over 2000 years old and a bronze necklace. Hence, indicating that they have
met the requirements for them to be classed as treasure.
(C)- When a treasure is found, it vests, subject to prior interests and rights 4 in the
franchisee, if there is one;5 otherwise, in the Crown6. So, if the necklace and the
coins declared to be treasure, then the individual/state who will be entitled to a
treasure will be the Crown, but the reward will go to the finder, and had permission to
be on the land and acted in good faith, a person or organisation with freehold on the
land or someone who occupies the lad as a tenant of the owner 7. So, in this case
would go to Casper because he had permission to be on Raymond’s property and
it’ll be Casper’s choice whether he wants to share his reward with his cousin.
(D)- One rule of interpretation of statutes that would be useful in interpreting the
Treasure Act is the Literal Rule. The Literal Rule is the first rule that is applied by
judges, this means that actions should only be taken upon what the law precisely
states and not what it could be interpreted as. An example of a case that used the
literal rule is the ‘Fisher v Bell case (1960)8’. In this case James Bell who was a
shopkeeper displayed a flick knife in his shop window. Under the Offence Weapons
Act19619 it is offense to sell offensive weapons, display them, manufacture them and
offer them for hire. When Bell was taken to trail it was decided that he will not be
convicted as the item was not for sale as the intention wasn’t there and it was
actually an invitation to treat and this is how the literal rule was applied. Another rule
of interpretation of statutes that would be useful in interpreting the Treasure Act is
the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule in its easiest connotation, means ‘do unto others
as you would have them do unto you’. You should treat others as you would like to
be treated yourself. A generic example would be that, if you would like to be treated
with respect then you should treat others with respect too. An example of a case that
used the golden rule is the ‘R v Allen (1872)’. In this case the defendant was charged
with the offence of bigamy (which is the offence of marrying an individual whilst
already married to another person). Under the Offences Against the Person Act
4
Treasure Act 1996, S4, (1)
5
Treasure Act 1996, S4 (a)
6
Treasure Act 1996, S4 (b)
7
https://www.gov.uk/treasure
8
Fisher v Bell (1960) QB 394
9
Offensive Weapons Act 1961, S1
