Cases and sections for Theft
0.0 / 5
- Created by: Katie Beaumont
- Created on: 26-04-17 20:28
What does the case of Morris confirm?
It confirms that pricing goods is an appropriation and there is no need to assume all the rights of the owner
1 of 29
What does the case of Gomez confirm?
It confirms that there doesn't need to be an absence of consent for there to be an appropriation
2 of 29
What is the case that confirms that there can be an appropriation even if the owner consents to the act?
Lawrence
3 of 29
What does the case of Hinks confirm?
It confirms that even a gift can amount to an appropriation, meaning theft depends on whether the MR is present
4 of 29
What does s.4(1) define?
it defines property as including money, real & personal property. things in action and intangible property
5 of 29
What section defines that land is not property, unless the turf itself is taken?
s.4(2)
6 of 29
What section defines that wild fruit etc are not property, unless appropriated for commercial purposes?
s.4(3)
7 of 29
What does s.4(4) define?
It defines that wild creatures cannot be property if untames and not reduced into possession.
8 of 29
What does the case of Oxford v Moss confirm?
It confirms that information is not property for the purposes of theft
9 of 29
What is the case that confirms that corpses are not property?
Kelly & Lindsay
10 of 29
Howevrr, why was D found guilty in this case?
Because the stolen parts were being preserved
11 of 29
What does the case of Lowe v Blease confirm?
It confirms that electricity is not property
12 of 29
Property belongs to another if a person has possession or control of it or has a legal right over it. What section provides this definition?
s.5(1)
13 of 29
What case confirms the definition for belonging to another?
Turner
14 of 29
What does s.5(3) confirm?
It confirms that property also belongs to another if they are under an obligation to deal with property in a particular way, until they have done it
15 of 29
What are the 3 cases that confirms this?
Hall/Wain/Davidge & Bunnett
16 of 29
What section defines that even if d gets the property by mistake, they are under an obligation to restore it?
S.5(4)
17 of 29
What does the case of AG Ref 1 of 1993?
This confirms that d is under an obligation to restore the property to its owner
18 of 29
What section provides 3 situations that will not be classed as dishonest?
s.2(1)
19 of 29
What does the case of Holden confirm?
It confirms that d is not dishonest if they believe that they have a legal right to the property
20 of 29
What section defines this?
s.2(1)(a)
21 of 29
What section confirms that the belief that d would have the owner's consent if they knew the situation would not be dishonest?
s.2(1)(b)
22 of 29
What does the case of Small confirm?
It confirms that d is not dishonest when the owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps
23 of 29
What section confirms this?
s.2(1)(c)
24 of 29
What is the case that provided the subjective and objective tests?
Gosh
25 of 29
What does s.6(1) defines?
It defines that ITPD is 'to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the others' rights or borrowing equivalent to an outright taking
26 of 29
What does the cases of Velumyl/Lavender/Marshall/Lloyd confirm?
They confirm s.6(1)
27 of 29
What does s.6(2) confirm?
It confirms that 'to part with the property under conditions which may not be able to be met
28 of 29
What case confirms this?
Easom
29 of 29
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
What does the case of Gomez confirm?
Back
It confirms that there doesn't need to be an absence of consent for there to be an appropriation
Card 3
Front
What is the case that confirms that there can be an appropriation even if the owner consents to the act?
Back

Card 4
Front
What does the case of Hinks confirm?
Back

Card 5
Front
What does s.4(1) define?
Back

Similar Law resources:
0.0 / 5
2.0 / 5 based on 2 ratings
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
2.5 / 5 based on 5 ratings
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
Comments
No comments have yet been made