Abstract
SummaryWhen a thief steals a work of art and resells it to a bona fide purchaser, most commentators favor protecting the buyer's title against a claim by the original owner. American law on this issue has been in flux, and today most American States resolve these disputes by balancing the buyer's blameworthiness against the owner's delay and fault. Such ad hoc statutes of limitations are misguided because they encourage art theft, reward morally culpable buyers, and leave the law unclear and unpredictable. Instead, the law should award title automatically to theft victims who immediately report their losses to the police and an international computerized database of art thefts. Doing so would create clear incentives for owners to report thefts and for buyers and art merchants to check the database, thus drying up the market for stolen art.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Museology,Anthropology,History,Cultural Studies,Conservation
Reference18 articles.
1. Comment, The Recovery of Stolen Art: Of Paintings, Statues, and Statutes of Limitations;Petrovich;UCLA L. Rev.,1980
2. Fraudulent Concealment and Statutes of Limitation
3. Note, The Need for Civil-Law Nations To Adopt Discovery Rules in Art Replevin Actions: A Comparative Study;Grover;Tex. L. Rev.,1992
4. The Disseisin of Chattels. II. The Nature of Ownership
5. The Adverse Possession of Personal Property;Gerstenblith;Buff. L. Rev.,1988
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献