Morris outlined that the assumption of 'any rights of the owner of the goods' amounts to theft
Gomez outlined that there can be appropriation even with the owners consent. Consent obtained by 'false representation'.
Hink outlined that the acceptance of a gift can be appropriation if it was obtained through D being deceptive.
Oxford V Moss outlined that information is not property
Kelly and Lindsay outlined that body parts are stolen if the body parts have a purpose
S.4(3) outlined that wildplants, berries etc are exempt from theft unless it is used to be sold
s.4(4) outlined that wildtamed or untamed animals cannot be stolen unless it is to be sold
Webster -Owner had proprietary right over property
Turner - 'thief' has proprietary right but not possession and control
Turner - stealing back car from the garage
Webster - 2nd medal sent to him by MoD
Kelly and Lindsay - Body parts stolen
Oxford v Moss - Information on exam paper
Hinks - Mother taking advantage of naive man
Gomez - bouncing cheques in electrical store
Morris - label switching
What did s.5 outline?
Belonging to another - 'any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary interest'
What did s.4(1) outline?
''property'' includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action or other intangible property
What did s.3 outline?
Appropriation - The assumption of the rights of the owner at the time or later (Morris, Gomez, Hicks)
What does s.5(3) specify?
If property is received under an obligation (Davidge v Bunnett and Hall)- under obligation to retain and deal with the property in a particular way.
What does s.5(4) specify?
If received by acciedent - underobligation to make restoration - AG'sreferenceno.1 obligation to restore, Gilks states: no obligation if it is a betting transaction
Abandonment and rubbish: find the P+C and the PR of the item