[lbo-talk] Re: (Native Americans and Nozick)

[John Mage]

Justin citing UCC 2-403 says:

 > Please notice that a good faith purchaser for value may acquire good
 > title regardless of whether the procurement of the goods was
 > larcenous under the criminal law.

NO. Not so, and not what section 2-403 says.

Justin, assuming you have studied sales, I can only figure you were
asleep during the void/voidable distinction lecture. If you get a sales
case you will learn it very quickly.

Basically (and this is really basic) a thief ("larcenous") - i.e. one
who takes without the owners consent -  cannot transfer title.  A bfp
("good faith purchaser for value")'s title is good against anyone EXCEPT
the original owner's (and of course anyone taking under him). As to the
original owner the bfp's title is VOID.

Fraud (owner's consent was induced improperly), contracts by minors &
some other categories (but never theft) give rise to VOIDABLE title.
That is, repudiation by the minor or the finding of a court of fraud
render an otherwise valid title void. Until that happens good title can
be transferred to a bfp.  This, and only this, is what UCC 2-403 and
explicitly 2-403(d) refers to. That is why (d) spells out that although
as a result of legislative action some frauds may be "punishable as
larcenous under criminal law" that does not affect the rule that fraud
does NOT count as theft for the purposes of the void/voidable
distinction in regard to sales.

Dust off your grandfather's [Judah P.] Benjamin on Sales and check it
out. If you client has in good faith purchased another man's stolen female
slave, he is plumb out of luck (though he can of course proceed against
his seller, but he loses the slave without compensation). Our task as
lawyers is to make a colorable claim that he can keep her afterborn
children.

john mage