6. in Amory v. Delamirie, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722), a “chimney sweeper’s boy” found a jewel and took it to a goldsmith and asked what it was worth. The goldsmith replied (3 pence). The boy refused the money and requested that it be returns. The goldsmith refused to return it. The court concluded that the boy had title to the jewel, not the goldsmith.
a. Explain the economic problem in this case.
b. What is the property right at issue in this case and in future cases that might use this case a precedent?
c. Do you agree with the decision? Explain.
Answer 6
a) Neither boy nor goldsmith was the owner of the jewel, person with less economic value may end up keeping it thus there will be inefficiency in the outcome achieved.
b) As there was no defined owner of jewel in this case, there was an issue regarding who will keep the product as in undefined property right. However, the court had given property rights to the boy which will encourage stealing as anyone can steal jewel in future then can claim to found it somewhere and by giving reference of this case verdict, thief can get ownership of jewel.
c) No, as this might encourage stealing. However, assigning property rights to goldsmith would also not have been correct as goldsmith was not the owner of jewel and unethically took it from the boy.
6. in Amory v. Delamirie, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722), a “chimney sweeper’s boy” found a...