Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Mistry1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Well it's arguable that he rents the farm and is allowed to grow crops on it. So if he grows grass and sells the resulting turf it's perfectly legal just as if he'd grown cabbages and sold them. So the lawn wasn't property of the farm owner at all - just the ground underneath it.
But as to the strict legal position - no idea. It may depend on the terms of the lease.
But as to the strict legal position - no idea. It may depend on the terms of the lease.
In order to be guilty of theft one needs to answer Yes to each and all of the following:
1. Is he dishonest?
2. Has he appropriated the property?
3. Is it property?
4. Does it belong to another?
5. Does he intend to permanently deprive the owner of that property?
Classic scenario for 1st year LL.B. undergraduates.
1. Is he dishonest?
2. Has he appropriated the property?
3. Is it property?
4. Does it belong to another?
5. Does he intend to permanently deprive the owner of that property?
Classic scenario for 1st year LL.B. undergraduates.
But surely, he hasn't actually 'stolen' anything from the Farmer; the ground is still there, the farmer may still access it, etc. The title always remained with the Farmer.
The person from whom the tenant took the money for the sale is the victim.
The tenant had no title to the property..........
It would have been 'Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception' or whatever it has been altered to by Fraud Act 2006 ?
The person from whom the tenant took the money for the sale is the victim.
The tenant had no title to the property..........
It would have been 'Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception' or whatever it has been altered to by Fraud Act 2006 ?