Consulted a Lawyer, Re.: the Coin-star return slot contents .....

[Tom_in_CA]

Just consulted a lawyer with the following question:

A) Assuming a coin-star machine is located on private property (Lucky's Grocery store for instance).

B) Assuming some of a customer's coins get rejected, and end up in the return-tray slot. Example: silver coins, foreign coins, gold coins, etc....

C) Assuming customer wasn't aware, (or didn't care) and walks away. Leaving the coins behind. Then ...

D) Who do those coins belong to? Assuming prior customer never comes back for them ?

E) Belong to the next lucky passerby who checks the return tray slot ?

F) Belong to the Store , on whose property the machine is located ?

G) Belong to the Coin Star Vending machine Co's, who placed the machine there ?

H) Belong to the police , as Lost & Found Property ?

Here was the Lawyer's answer: "They belong to the Coin Star machine Co. " Not the store. And not anyone who passes by . And not the police, since it's on private property, not public ( and because presumably they aren't worth the $100 -or-more threshold anyhow). And he said there's usually a ph. # on the machine to call for questions, inquiries, claims, etc....

I asked him for his source/citation of law that would back up this legal opinion. He said that it's "common law". But that .... if someone cared to research it long enough, it would be in "case law". I asked "what case law can you cite?". He said that if I wanted to send them a letter, they would research further to provide the case law precedents. But that he was "100% confident".

I am not going to bother their firm to delve into it , to find case law precedents. As I don't want to test their patience But there you have it. That's the technical answer. Then he finished the phone call by saying he'd once found .50c in the change slot of the soda machine at their office lobby. And kept it.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Swaveab]

Hey Swaveab & KCM : At first glance, this line of reasoning is stellar ! Seems insurmountable

But I have an insider's view of how this would fall apart: I own a street sweeper business. We service shopping centers as one of the types of street sweepers we send out. And as such, we are on shopping center properties all the time. Including the alleys, cleaning up where their dumpsters are located. And as you well imagine, they (some) forbid dumpster diving to the general public. On the basis of "private property", etc..... EVEN though those things are "rejected" and slated to be thrown out.

(I'm sure they forbid dumpster diving, for fear of people leaving a mess around the dumpster, or getting sued if the person slips, or whatever. ) But the point remains: The mere fact of items being rejected, does not equal = free game for anyone else.

Hence the mere act of "rejected" and "thrown out", does not mean they can't still be under the control of the private property owner, just as in the case of dumpster goodies. (if the property owner cares to police it)

I forgot to address this. The dumpster was never intended for public access like the return bin is. Intent is a big part of law and Coinstar's intent was to give back these coins. By your way of thinking, the very guy that put the coins in that get rejected are now the property of Coinstar. Not so as they intentionally disowned the rejected coins. They made no effort to keep said rejects as they could've if they intended to keep them. A dumpster can be dangerous and they don't want to be held liable for any injuries while in their personal property.

In response to another post, coins of value it keeps are not distinguished from regular coins and a payment is made for the coins it keeps. Your only recourse in getting them back should Coinstar say no is to prove that the coins were stolen and you'd need a record of the items too because there may be silver in there that was not deposited by the child. All coins the machine has put in its internal keep bin is repaid by the methods already mentioned and isn't necessarily by cash. I doubt Coinstar will give an argument on returning said collection just as long as it gets the face value of the coins in remittance that it had already paid out to the child or would be thief.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Msbeepbeep]

If coinstar cared if you took the coins there wouldn't be a return/ reject opening for you to access.IMO It would be an internal tray that only coinstar could access.

Oh but there is an internal reject "tray"! And coinstar is a thief!

found that out earlier this month,
after dumping a bunch of coins in one, i wondered if it also accepted dollar coins. Read the sign, yep! So i tossed in an Ike dollar.

After all the other coins were either counted or rejected, i could still hear the clunking of Ike going round and round. After a while the machine asked me if i was done, yep. It scrolled out the receipt, absent the listing of any dollar coins. After a while i heard the distinctive clunk of Ike being thrown in a metal holding cell somewhere inside the coinstar machine, cause he deffinately wasn't in the reject tray!
I went to the customer service counter at walmart and told them what happened. She called the
coinstar and the manager.

Coinstar told her there is a reject bucket inside the machine, and it won't accept Ike dollars....nope its steals them!

I have no guilty feelings for checking the reject tray now!


Sent from my VS810PP using Tapatalk

 

[ARC]

Oh but there is an internal reject "tray"! And coinstar is a thief!

found that out earlier this month,
after dumping a bunch of coins in one, i wondered if it also accepted dollar coins. Read the sign, yep! So i tossed in an Ike dollar.

After all the other coins were either counted or rejected, i could still hear the clunking of Ike going round and round. After a while the machine asked me if i was done, yep. It scrolled out the receipt, absent the listing of any dollar coins. After a while i heard the distinctive clunk of Ike being thrown in a metal holding cell somewhere inside the coinstar machine, cause he deffinately wasn't in the reject tray!
I went to the customer service counter at walmart and told them what happened. She called the
coinstar and the manager.

Coinstar told her there is a reject bucket inside the machine, and it won't accept Ike dollars....nope its steals them!

I have no guilty feelings for checking the reject tray now!


Sent from my VS810PP using Tapatalk

I smell a potential lawsuit.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

kcm: "...in order for lawyers to do their job in a court of law, they are sometimes bound to distort and sometimes even destroy the truth..."

I can't agree with that. Attorneys are not bound to lie.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[ivan salis]

when you "ask" you empower the person being asked to "limit" what you can and can not do -- if its not clearly posted that you can not .. I always assume that you can detect "public property" ...since as a "common user" of the public land --I am just as "entitled" to enjoy the park as any other person ( dog walker , kids playing sports , ect ,ect) unless said land is a well known "historical area /preserve area" or is clearly posted ...I go on the its "public land" and there for public use , and I'm the "public"...now if for some strange reason some sort of "legal"; or park person says --"no" I will comply but I WILL CHECK IN ON IT TO BE SURE THAT THY ARE CORRECT IN SAYING SO ... Ivan --out

as far as coin star coins go -- I think of it as "abandoned property" --since the machine actually tells you to "check the reject tray" so if you knowingly just walk away from the coins --you are abandoning them --and since coin star did not "pay" for them --thus their in the reject tray --I do not hold that they are coin stars --the store also did not pay for them either -- so I hold with the first person to find the "abandoned property" gets to keep them --since the amount is normally way below the "lost and found" values of most states the cops need not be bothered ....common sense approach ...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Ivan, I get what you're saying. I too am the biggest proponent of "silent on the subject = not disallowed". And therefore, if there's no signs (or express easily found common knowledge prohibitions) on taking coins from the coins-star slot, then by golly, I too am going to do it !

So too is this sort of analogous to the common question of md'rs on "where is legal to detect?" issue that comes up frequently: JUST LIKE THE COIN-STAR EXAMPLE, you can ALWAYS find some silly answer of "no". And , heck, the person telling you "no" (like the lawyer I consulted for this post), might even have some dire sounding compelling legal stuff to back up what they're saying.

Yet the REAL WORLD answer (ie.: does anyone really care?) is far different. SO TOO DOES THE SAME PSYCHOLOGY apply in where we can or can't detect, IMHO. Oh sure, don't throw caution to the wind. Of course. But on the other hand, don't ask bored desk-bound pencil pushers or purist archies silly questions

 

[ivan salis]

when you "ask" for permission .. you empower he person you are asking to basically be your "boss" --allowing them to tell you what you can or can not do --so choose wisely who you "ask" permission from in the first place --(if at all) -- basically stack the deck in your favor and once the "ok" is given --get it in writing..

 

[ARC]

In Florida it does not matter if abandoned or lost...
Statute...

705.102 Reporting lost or abandoned property.—
(1) Whenever any person finds any lost or abandoned property, such person shall report the description and location of the property to a law enforcement officer.

(2) The law enforcement officer taking the report shall ascertain whether the person reporting the property wishes to make a claim to it if the rightful owner cannot be identified or located. If the person does wish to make such claim, he or she shall deposit with the law enforcement agency a reasonable sum sufficient to cover the agency’s cost for transportation, storage, and publication of notice. This sum shall be reimbursed to the finder by the rightful owner should he or she identify and reclaim the property.

(3) It is unlawful for any person who finds any lost or abandoned property to appropriate the same to his or her own use or to refuse to deliver the same when required.

(4) Any person who unlawfully appropriates such lost or abandoned property to his or her own use or refuses to deliver such property when required commits theft as defined in s. 812.014, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

[ARC]

705.101 Definition

(2) “Lost property” means all tangible personal property which does not have an identifiable owner and which has been mislaid on public property, upon a public conveyance, on premises used at the time for business purposes, or in parks, places of amusement, public recreation areas, or other places open to the public in a substantially operable, functioning condition or which has an apparent intrinsic value to the rightful owner.

 

[ARC]

So...

That next 1941 quarter... heh

I can see a cop looking at you like... "are you on something ? " if you were to walk up and say... "hey man I just found this quarter over there in that field".

OR...

"Excuse me officer... I just found this quarter in the change return chute on this newspaper machine over here."

Officer - "place the quarter on the ground and remove your other hand from your pocket slowly" (as he reaches for his sidearm).

 

[SeabeeRon]

So...

That next 1941 quarter... heh

I can see a cop looking at you like... "are you on something ? " if you were to walk up and say... hey man I just found this quarter over there in that field.

Heck with the Qtr, I was thinking I better turn in those crusty Zinclons!

 

[b3y0nd3r]

this thread still alive? I thought we settled this with my previous post.

 

[ARC]

Can you imagine if everyone who found something in a change slot... or on the ground reported it ?

Sheesh the cops would be doing nothing else but filling out lost and found reports all day. :/

 

[ARC]

this thread still alive? I thought we settled this with my previous post.

We ?

You have a mouse in yer pocket ? :P

 

[bowser]

a penny for your thoughts, the lawyer would put them in his briefs, call a cop, is this thread of any value, you can bet your bottom dollar it's not

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... and once the "ok" is given --get it in writing..

I'd be careful with that. Sometimes when you ask a total stranger to "put that in writing" (essentially putting a contract in front of them to sign), then this can give them the willies. Ie.: to conjure up some legal hassles, etc.... I mean, think of it: Put yourself in their shoes: They just gave you a verbal yes, and you, a total stranger, or saying "print and sign your name authorizing such & such", might be the fastest way to get yes turned to a no.

On the other hand, I can see how "having it in writing" gives a sense of comfort. But all of this presumes you're going to run into someone who 'thinks your lying' about someone else's "yes". Like, you say "Janice down at city hall said it was ok", then .... do you REALLY think the busy-body is going to say "you're lying?" Or if they confirm with Janice, do you really think she's going to deny having told you "yes" ? Sure, anything's possible. But are those scenarios likely ? No. Thus I would go with a verbal yes, and not burden/scare someone with a contract.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

In Florida it does not matter if abandoned or lost...
Statute...

705.102 Reporting lost or abandoned property.—
....

Ahhh, good catch AARC. So this sheds light on all of those, on this thread , who say that "abandonment" changes the answer the lawyer gave me. Ie.: abandoned because it left there by the A) customer and B) store ) . As if the magic word "abandoned" or "rejected" allows for them to take the change. Your citations seems to disallow even purposefull abandoment, as grounds for it being fair game. Ie.: it does NOT constitute grounds for the next passerby to keep it. At least in Florida anyhow.

However, something tells me you're leaving something out of that. Are you sure there's not a value criteria cutoff for those laws you posted in post # 95 and 96 ? Because usually, in all 50 states, there's a value criteria for when such things kick into effect. In CA, for instance, it's $100 or more in value.

Curiously, I see in #96, that it references the value as being that which " ....has an apparent intrinsic value to the rightful owner. " Well gee that's pretty vague and subjective. What's to stop you or I from deciding that a Rolex watch is of no apparent value ? So check FL again, if you can, and see if there's any lost & found statues that actually spell out a dollar value cutoff. Versus if it's really up to this wording in #96.

Good catch !

 

[b3y0nd3r]

We ?

You have a mouse in yer pocket ? :P

LOL I was hoping that what coinstar(the supposed property owner) put out regarding the reject try, would, settle this. I would equate to a property owner giving you permission to hunt, and the gov stepping in and saying you can't.

 

[kcm]

kcm: "...in order for lawyers to do their job in a court of law, they are sometimes bound to distort and sometimes even destroy the truth..."

I can't agree with that. Attorneys are not bound to lie.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

If I could find that law book, I'd prove you wrong. Maybe not all law books teach this, but I found one that did.

Further, this book had the US Constitution in it. Not all together....but broken up into segments, as though it's simply too long to grasp otherwise. While reading the book, I learned a few things about the Constitution that I didn't know before. Then I went back and re-read ONLY the Italic parts. Ok, now something wasn't quite making sense. So I went online and looked up the Constitution and read it again in its entirety. I then learned that this book breaks the document into short sections (sometimes as short as 3 words) and tells you what each section means. However, as these sections are taken out of context, they were then able to claim a different meaning for parts of the Constitution.

I don't know if this university replaced that book with a similar (uber-liberal) book, but this was the university that this young attorney went to. So again, here was this young man wanting to make a good living for his family, goes to school, studies hard, makes very good grades. In the process, he was taught things that I would consider to be wrong. This doesn't make 'him' a bad person!! Yet when I brought out these same thoughts to him (who STUDIED AND MEMORIZED those books), the expression on his face changed. He seemed to be a bit in conflict now about his chosen profession. In the end, it's up to him as to whether he's a good person or not; as well as whether he is an honest attorney, or one who will destroy the truth in order for his client to win.

Being a lawyer is still an honorable profession, but there are FAR too many who care nothing about the truth. Hence, their reputation. And just because they do everything "legal", doesn't mean they also follow "moral" codes. For example, there was once a beef we had with a company. We paid for something but did not get it. They claimed it wasn't paid for. (was part of a package deal) It finally ended up in small-claims court. We spoke with a couple of attorney's in our little town, but as it was small claims, they wouldn't even answer any questions for us. So when we went to court, our opponent is there with his lawyer. The judge informs them that they cannot use an attorney in small claims, which they already knew. So they ask the judge if it would be ok for their lawyer (since he's already there) to just sit in as a silent observer. The judge asked us and, as we had nothing to hide (and zero understanding of what was about to happen), we said sure. During the process, their attorney remained silent, sitting in the first row behind the opponents. He DID, however, whisper to them every now and then. What, we have no idea.

So you tell me - would that follow moral code? It was legal, but not moral. Also, the next time we went there, our opponents and the lawyer were talking to the judge up close and personal. The judge wasn't at his chair, but they were in the courtroom, all alone with the judge, before thee day began. One thing I "DO" know is, that's not allowed. It doesn't matter if they speak of everything under the sun EXCEPT court-related - we cannot know what was said. We had no representation. It was a stacked deck.

This is what I speak of. ...And I'm certain there are much worse slimeballs out there practicing law!!

 

[Old Bookaroo]

kcm: Every professional, trade, or other occupation has good people and bad people. The fact there are bad ones doesn't prove they were trained or required to not follow the laws, rules, regulations, company procedures, etc.

If you want an opinion on the law, go see an attorney.

If you want an answer to a moral question, go see a philosopher, priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, or other spiritual leader.

Although, in my experience, there are (happily) a great many ethical and moral attorneys.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo