Circuit Court of Appeals Unit 5 GP

In determining whether the plane was an abandoned, lost or misplaced property, it is important to consider the meaning and implication of each of the three situations. Abandoned property constitutes those items no longer in the possession of the original owner, and the beneficial or possessory interest of which has been intentionally relinquished, given up or released” (Ralp 1981).  In simple terms all that property that is left behind intentionally and permanently and it is as if the original owner has no intention of coming back to collect it or use it can be referred to as abandoned property (Ralp, 1981). Lost property is property that has parted with the original owner involuntarily or unwittingly whether via neglect, carelessness or inadvertence. The owner of lost property has no knowledge of the property’s whereabouts (Ralp, 1981). Misplaced or mislaid property constitutes that property which after being placed or kept somewhere by the owner, he/she forgets it (Ralp, 1981). The place where the property is found is crucial in establishing whether the property was lost or misplaced (Ralp, 1981). Going by the above explanations the plane can be said to have been an abandoned property since the circumstances exhibit ‘voluntary forsaking by the owner (Benjamin v. Linder Aviation, Incl., 534 N. W 2d 400 IOWA 1995).’ The circumstances indicate that the owner (Navy) left it intentionally and for a very long period of time leading to the presumption that they had no intention of coming back to pick it.  There was neither involuntary aspect (lost property) nor that of keeping and forgetting (misplaced property). Q2. Inorder to cure anomalies that can arise in contracts involving government and third parties (businessmen) a provision such as one below would be crucial …provided that there is ratification or approval by the congress or any person/agent authorized by the same to act on its behalf or, This contract is subject to the approval/ratification of the congress or agent appointed for that purpose to act on their behalf. With such provisions, traders can ascertain whether the congress/government has authorized the disposal of the property in question (Atiyah, 1979). With such provisions being incorporated in the contract agreement, contractors can only endorse the agreement upon being satisfied that it has been approved by the relevant authority. (Congress/Government).                                           Reference Ralp E. Boyer, (1981) Survey of the Law of Property, 680, 3rd Ed. Benjamin v. Linder Aviation, Incl., 534 N. W 2d 400 IOWA 1995 Atiyah P.S., (1979) The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract Clarendon Press.