Good idea?

[Wickaboag]

So there is an old abandoned house getting fixed up. They tore all the bushes and trees out of the yard and it's just dead roots and loose dirt. The house has been there since atleast 1900.
Good idea to ask the workers on the house if I can poke around with metal detector?
Wicka

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[mrwilburino]

Of course you need the permission of the property owner if you are looking to hunt private property. It’s a very simple process:
1. Ring the doorbell
2. Ask to speak to the owner of the property
3. Request permission to hunt.
No background checks, security clearance, or DNA testing involved.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[lucky larry]

OK. I'll play one more round. Let's say the worker gave you the OK to search the property and you found/removed an item, eg coin, ring... Then let's say the property owner found out and decided to press charges for trespassing (or for whatever offense may - or may not - have been committed). What would your defense be? Your honor, the worker said it was OK.
Really?

 

[l.cutler]

I know if I hired someone to do work on my property and they gave people permission to metal detect or do anything else, I would not be too happy.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

What would your defense be? Your honor, the worker said it was OK.
Really?

Yes, really.

You are not trespassing, if you have permission. If a worker gives me permission, then that means, at least as far as he's concerned, that he has that ability to subrograte and "make decisions" on behalf of the pink-slip holder. This is nothing new. Owners of large companies, for instance, ALWAYS subrograte such minor decisions to their managers, etc... I mean, duh, afterall, that's what those workers and middle managers are THERE for, to begin with.

For example: I own a company with several employees (a street sweeper company). If one of my workers loaned a shovel to one of our customers (not an uncommon request), I would not think "oh, you had to wake me up in the middle of the night to have gotten an ok to that request". I mean .... seriously now. Thus on the contrary, that's what my worker's job is for, is to handle those day-to-day events, routines, decision making, etc.... And if for some reason I didn't like it, then I'm not mad at the person who borrowed the shovel, I'd have to be mad at my employee for loaning it (perhaps making a bad decision on who he trusted to use our equipment, or whatever). But no, not every "sniffel" needs my approval.

So legally speaking, to answer your question, the md'r is not in any legal trouble, if he got a "yes". Even if it was "just a renter" or "just any employee", etc.....

If any lawyers here have more to say on that, I'd love to hear it.

 

[calisdad]

So there was this bicycle next to a park bench when I sat down. Someone came up and asked if I would take $100 for the bike........... ;-)

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

So there was this bicycle next to a park bench when I sat down. Someone came up and asked if I would take $100 for the bike........... ;-)

Ha, good one. As I made my post, I just KNEW someone was going to come on and offer that twist, of a situation where someone "selling something" or "granting approval" , was .... in actual reality, .... NOT the real owner, or real employee, etc...

My answer to that is, that, for starters, this question was not about those situations. Situations where the person was not the owner (and selling the London Bridge, etc..), or not a real employee (thus they had no authority to grant permission). The question was about "real employees" and "real owners".

This question was about legitimate cases of legitimate renters, employees, etc... So to jump from that, to cases where the premises changes, does not detract from my argument, it merely creates a new and different scenario.

I suppose this too is probably a question for a lawyer, since I'm sure there's been cases of "good faith" or "reasonable assumption" court cases.

Your example is of an "imposter" who merely "poses" as the owner of the bike-for-sale. Well gee, taken to it's logical ends, so-too might I ask a cashier "can I use the restroom?". And the cashier says "ok, go ahead". BUT WAIT, how do I know that the cashier was *really* an employee? Afterall, I didn't ask to see his ID. And didn't give him a DNA test. It's certainly possible he might have been someone who stole an employees uniform, and was merely posing as a cashier.

Thus at some point, we all subconsciously make decisions, based on say-so of whomever we're asking. Assuming that they have the power to grant permission. Where does it end? I mean, you can keep thinking "this persons doesn't look authoritative enough", and work your way up to the president of the USA (afterall, you "can't be too safe", right?)

 

[BryanM362]

So there was this bicycle next to a park bench when I sat down. Someone came up and asked if I would take $100 for the bike........... ;-)

Completely different situation. You have no ownership, or authority over the bike....

 

[calisdad]

Completely different situation. You have no ownership, or authority over the bike....

The employee has no ownership over the dirt in the yard and I never portrayed any ownership over the bike.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they're not".

 

[BryanM362]

The employee has no ownership over the dirt in the yard and I never portrayed any ownership over the bike.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they're not".

He may not have ownership, but for our pruposes he has perceived authority, which is enoough for me.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

re

The employee has no ownership over the dirt in the yard

The employee doesn't NEED "ownership" of the dirt in the yard, to grant permission to someone else to step there, or pick his nose there, or whatever.

Employees ARE given subrogated authority to make decisions in the day-to-day affairs of the job they do. That's what they're HIRED for, for pete's sake.

If everything they did or said had to go through their bosses's bosses boss, then ....... nothing would ever get down. The owners therefore rely on the middle managers to deal with various tasks. And those middle managers, in-turn, rely on the workers under them to do their jobs (even if.... gasp .... that requires making decisions in the course of the day). Therefore, it's QUITE COMMON for a worker to have control of his work environment. Even if he's not the highest high boss of that company.

 

[calisdad]

Hey- the OP found a rosie and a few coins and I say Great! He asked, got permission and all is well. But when you say any employee has 'subrogated authority ' over the dirt in the yard I have to respectfully disagree. For instance- what if the OP found an expensive wedding ring (or any thing else)? He comes back the next day and the owner is there. The owner says- fine go ahead, but I just lost something of value. If you find it, its mine. The employee has NO right to give away things that aren't his. As a retired building contractor I know quite well which way responsibility flows and it's not downhill.

Who owns the expensive item that was found after the owner says he lost it? Why?

 

[wainzoid]

It would be more like asking the clerk if you could take whatever you find.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hey- the OP found a rosie and a few coins and I say Great! He asked, got permission and all is well. But when you say any employee has 'subrogated authority ' over the dirt in the yard I have to respectfully disagree. For instance- what if the OP found an expensive wedding ring (or any thing else)? He comes back the next day and the owner is there. The owner says- fine go ahead, but I just lost something of value. If you find it, its mine. The employee has NO right to give away things that aren't his. As a retired building contractor I know quite well which way responsibility flows and it's not downhill.

Who owns the expensive item that was found after the owner says he lost it? Why?

calisdad, no one is disputing that a higher-up manager or owner can't over-turn any say-so of a lower level person. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. So OF COURSE the owner of the property can come up, the next day, and say "I want everything you found, despite what the worker yesterday might have told you". So what you're saying is not in dispute.

But it still doesn't change the fact that ...... yesterday .... when the worker said "help yourself", that THAT is the rule/permission "in effect", until such a time as someone higher up comes along and changes it.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

ask the contractor...where ever they are working...don't be there...make it clear that is your policy...

I have had good luck with this method.

 

[lucky larry]

All good points. I like to hear from all sides of an argument. Sometimes, it even gets me to change my opinion - not in this case - but sometimes 😉

 

[EasyriderTX]

I am probably going to get hammered but wouldn't it be prudent to ask a contractor for the phone number of the owner if its not posted at the potential MDing site

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I am probably going to get hammered but wouldn't it be prudent to ask a contractor for the phone number of the owner if its not posted at the potential MDing site

Well, perhaps this might be a 2nd step to take, if the contractor said "no", in order to over-turn that no, to possibly make that in to a "yes". But other than that, why bother? Especially if, for example, the "owner" is a nameless faceless coorporation in another state, or something odd? If you're staring into the face of someone there who has the say-so under his control, then ........ that's good enough for me. If they want to say "you gotta talk to so & so across town or in New York", then sure, they can deflect my question to someone else. But if they say "go ahead, help yourself", I'm not going to argue with them