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 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Deft Tones]

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

And none to be found among politicians, unfortunately.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

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

Well said old bookaroo.

There is a saying in law school : "Reasonable people disagree". So while one person may see a finagling by a lawyer (and the person they represent by-extension) as being "lying", .... it is more often than not simply a case of "reasonable people disagree".

I know that in our mind's eyes there cut & dried right and wrongs (and certainly for some things it IS "cut and dried"). But for a whole slew of other issues needing resolution that arise, .... reasonable people can disagree.

Here is a fascinating example of this:

Grove v. Charbonneau Buick-Pontiac, Inc. :: 1976 :: North Dakota Supreme Court Decisions :: North Dakota Case Law :: North Dakota Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

In short, a hole in one is astronomically rare. Much less to predict a certain hole on a certain day, just ..... very unlikely. Right ? So a car dealer had made an advertised gimmick promotion (to advertise a fundraiser golf tournament) that he award a brand new car to "Anyone who hit a hole in one on the 8th hole". It was a 9 hole course, so the players have to play it 2x through, to have the total of the 18 holes. On the 2nd time through, one of the participants hit a hole in one on the 2nd time through, on the 8th hole (so it was actually the 16th hole, yet the flag says "8th hole").

Ok, which is it ? Did he successfully hit a hole in one on the 8th hole ? Or the 16th hole ? To the car dealer (who doesn't want to give away a free car) he would consider any lawyer who proves otherwise, to be a "liar". And to the golfer who wants the free car, he would consider a lawyer who proves to the contrary to be a "liar".

Yet as you can see, this is one of those "reasonable people disagree" type disputes !

 

[Deft Tones]

Well said old bookaroo.

There is a saying in law school : "Reasonable people disagree". So while one person may see a finagling by a lawyer (and the person they represent by-extension) as being "lying", .... it is more often than not simply a case of "reasonable people disagree".

I know that in our mind's eyes there cut & dried right and wrongs (and certainly for some things it IS "cut and dried"). But for a whole slew of other issues needing resolution that arise, .... reasonable people can disagree.

Here is a fascinating example of this:

Grove v. Charbonneau Buick-Pontiac, Inc. :: 1976 :: North Dakota Supreme Court Decisions :: North Dakota Case Law :: North Dakota Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

In short, a hole in one is astronomically rare. Much less to predict a certain hole on a certain day, just ..... very unlikely. Right ? So a car dealer had made an advertised gimmick promotion (to advertise a fundraiser golf tournament) that he award a brand new car to "Anyone who hit a hole in one on the 8th hole". It was a 9 hole course, so the players have to play it 2x through, to have the total of the 18 holes. On the 2nd time through, one of the participants hit a hole in one on the 2nd time through, on the 8th hole (so it was actually the 16th hole, yet the flag says "8th hole").

Ok, which is it ? Did he successfully hit a hole in one on the 8th hole ? Or the 16th hole ? To the car dealer (who doesn't want to give away a free car) he would consider any lawyer who proves otherwise, to be a "liar". And to the golfer who wants the free car, he would consider a lawyer who proves to the contrary to be a "liar".

Yet as you can see, this is one of those "reasonable people disagree" type disputes !

The couse didn't change. Any numbering system is moot.

They put a prize on a hole-in-one on a specific hole and allowed 2 shots at the same flag. Someone sunk it. Game over. JMO

Don't have time to read atm. What did the judge rule?

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Deft Tones:

When did "civil servants" become "politicians?"

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[ARC]

If I use the toilet in a public restroom...
and leave something in the toilet because I forgot to flush...

is that considered abandonment of my "personal" property ?

:P

 

[FreeBirdTim]

Lawyers have to lie to protect people from dishonest cops. Watch a few episodes of "The First 48" and you'll see their true colors. They lie about everything to wrap up a case. They'll tell the accused they have a witness (which they don't), have them on video committing the crime (total lie) or physical evidence linking them to the crime (yet another lie). To them, the end justifies the means, even if the person may be innocent.

They also violate people's civil rights on a daily basis. They bring someone in for questioning, but don't tell them they're suspected of committing the crime. That way, they think they don't have to read him his rights, which is wrong on so many levels. They also brush off having a lawyer present during questioning. "You don't want a lawyer, do you?" Again, wrong and against that person's right to have an attorney present during questioning.

I have a few relatives who are cops, so I do know what kind of abuse they take. But that doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they want in a case. Cops are great, until they have YOU in their sights. I've been harassed by them many times and always stood up for my rights. I have zero tolerance for bullies, but a cop who's a bully is as low as you can go, in my opinion. Their job is to SERVE and protect, not to be a jerk with a badge. End of rant.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The couse didn't change. Any numbering system is moot.

They put a prize on a hole-in-one on a specific hole and allowed 2 shots at the same flag. Someone sunk it. Game over. JMO

Don't have time to read atm. What did the judge rule?

Deft-tones, thanx for chiming in. Your particular persuasion on that legal dilemma sides with the golfer . That he's entitled to the free new car, d/t it was the 8th hold (as evidenced by the little flag). Yet equally reasonable people would say he was on his 2nd time through (as evidenced by the rules of golf) hence he was on the 16th hole. NOT the "8th" hole

You ask how it ended. The Auto dealer lost. The golf tournament participant won. The rationale was the following: "Ambiguity is decided in favor of the SIGNER of the contract". Ie.: the burden of need-to-make clear is put on the MAKER of the contract, not the SIGNER of a contract. And his entry into the tournament was considered to be a "contract" . The contract was deemed to be the ad in the newspaper promising a new car to anyone hitting a hole in one .

It was just some annual fundraisers for that town's rotary club or little league, or some such silly community event. And you can only imagine that having to give away a brand new car probably bankrupted that poor car dealer.

 

[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

Lemme provide an example - generic, as it is: Let's say there's this defense attorney who has a real winner for a client (winner in this case is NOT good!). The attorney is under oath to do everything they can to get their client off or, in the least, to get sentencing reduced as much as possible. Any attorney worth his salt will twist and distort everything they can in order to make this happen. If an attorney does NOT do everything they can, then they may very well lose business. In an extreme instance, an attorney may be disbarred - as in, if an attorney believes his client is guilty, so therefore does not do his level best to help his client.

I don't know if there is an actual "oath" that lawyers have to take, similar to doctors and their Hippocratic oath. However, "the system" is set up to ensure as much of these actions as possible.

Another example. Now that actual law is all but irrelevant and case law rules supreme, how many times has an attorney been able to argue a case so well that the judge ruled in their favor when even the judge knew it was wrong? It's not up to the judge to argue either side. So if the opposition did not do a good enough job of arguing their case, then a judge can and often will rule in favor of the first attorney. This now becomes "case law". Now, and any time in the future, lawyers may use this lawsuit to argue their case. Nobody can really go back and figure out what happened during the first case, as maybe the people aren't even alive anymore.

Also, when arguing case law, how many times do attorneys take quips from case law as reference in a case? Well, every single time. Case law is how court battles are fought now. ...And how often is case law taken out of context so as to change the meaning? It happens quite often. How can I be so certain? Because we're human. Often it may be a mistake on the part of the lawyer. Maybe a mistake on the part of the judge. When is it NOT a mistake? When it is taken out of context intentionally. That, by definition, is a lie; a partial or false truth. Nothing can be "The Truth" unless it is 100% true. And no, somebody making a statement in error is not a lie - it is an error. Allowing it to remain uncorrected once discovered would make it a lie.


Anyway folks, it's been fun but I'm gonna un-subscribe from this thread. We're getting too far off-topic for my tastes and it's gettin' a bit heavy now.

See ya'.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

I believe today many tournaments purchase hole-in-one insurance to cover themselves.

I recently read about a policy that didn't pay off because the terms required a minimum distance and the pin had been set on the green such it was too close.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[kcm]

Ah, glad I hadn't missed that. ..."Hole-in-One insurance"?? Is there really such a thing?!?!??!?



ADDED: It DOES exist!!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...."Hole-in-One insurance"?? Is there really such a thing?!?!??!? View attachment 1393807



ADDED: It DOES exist!! View attachment 1393808

Hey, you're right ! (google is you friend). No doubt getting its name from that 1976 court case. That 1976 case, from what I recall from law classes in college, was a "precedent". Or at least was used to illustrate a precedent/example of "reasonable people disagree" .

 

[ARC]

Hmmm like the guy who bought a box of very expensive cigars...
Insured em...
Then smoked them with his buddy's one night drunk...
Then later filed a claim of loss due to fire.

Insurance refused to pay.
Took them to court where the guy won against insurance co.

As he was chuckling about his win and exiting the courtroom two officers approached him and said...

"Your under arrest for arson".

heh

 

[BigWaveDave]

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

Whoa!...wait a minute....hold on....
Karen..... the hell are you dumping an Ike in a coinstar anyways?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... the hell are you dumping an Ike in a coinstar anyways?

The instructions say it accepts dollar coins. That is no doubt referring to Susan B. dollars, eh ? But someone could think it applies to Ikes too. Heck, I wonder if anyone ever dumped $1 gold pieces in there. Those are "one dollar" after all !

 

[Honest Samuel]

Last Monday, I had found coins in Walmart, then walk next door to ShopRite, and had found coins there including a old silver dime in poor condition.

 

[ivan salis]

uh if you find "lost items" like small change and bother a cop here in florida by making him / her do a butt load of paper work , you will most likely get "real popular" for getting tickets ...so if going by that exact rule --every single coin found in florida by metal detectorist would have to be "reported " as lost money to the cops ...and of course the 50 year man made goods archie rule would apply - so any coins before 1967 would become "state property"....so kiss that 1941 quarter good bye

 

[Swaveab]

Deft Tones:

When did "civil servants" become "politicians?"

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

Actually, politicians are public servants. Lawyers are not, unless they become politicians, as they are in the business of practicing law and are not bound to or paid by the public.

 

[Chadeaux]

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

Wrong ... "win at all costs" is the attitude. Scorched earth is the norm. Lying (i.e. "destroy the truth") is the M.O.

I only know because I work with lawyers almost daily. My lawyer, my customers' lawyers (Federal Bankruptcy Court), and the various trustees' representatives. In the hundreds I've personally dealt with, there's only one I've met who I would trust. Of course, my employer steers clear of him.

"I want a good lawyer, not an honest one!"

 

[Chadeaux]

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

Where in the heck do they have them sequestered, and of what use are they?

 

[kcm]

Wrong ... "win at all costs" is the attitude. Scorched earth is the norm. Lying (i.e. "destroy the truth") is the M.O.

I only know because I work with lawyers almost daily. My lawyer, my customers' lawyers (Federal Bankruptcy Court), and the various trustees' representatives. In the hundreds I've personally dealt with, there's only one I've met who I would trust. Of course, my employer steers clear of him.

"I want a good lawyer, not an honest one!"

Call me an idiot, but I still want an honest one. ...Which is why it was sort of a draw in court, even with overwhelming evidence. When the bad guys play dirty, you just cannot imagine the depths of their dirtiness until you push them into a corner.

As for Bookaroo, he(?) told me that he has several good and honest lawyers in his family. That is wonderful!! However, from "my" experience, Chadeaux is nail-on-the-head correct. Lawyers have a bad reputation - VASTLY bad!! Does that mean that all lawyers are bad? Nope, quite the opposite. However, the ones that don't destroy or distort the truth surely do not "need" to for the type of law they practice. ...I feel like my words are starting to spin around again, so will cut this short. ...Ok, ok - stop cheering!! ....Oh, just read Chadeaux's post again! I'm going back to bed!