The right to hold on to lost property depends on where it is found, circumstances involved Do you agree that a person who accidentally finds a gold watch on the street should be entitled to possess it? It seems to be a deep-rooted principle that the finder would be given the right to keep the goods when the true owner cannot be found.
Remember the owner will always have the superior right to claim the property. This principle is true in most cases. However, laws can never be so rigid. Different cases are characterised by different circumstances in which the sole reliance on a general law may not uphold justice for all relevant parties.
It happens when somebody finds a lost and unidentified object in someone else's premises. The 'finders keepers' principle is then challenged by the general law that ownership of the land probably includes all things attached to it.
Some common law principles, founded on two recent English cases, have been established in response to this scenario.
In the first place, the finder must not be a trespasser as this will probably deprive him of the right of possession. 'Trespass' here refers to interference with other's goods or premises, intentionally or negligently.
Given the finder is not a trespasser nor a wrongdoer, between the finder and the owner of the premises, who has a superior right to the found object? Different rules apply in regard to where the lost object was found on the premises.
If an object was found on or attached to the land, the owner of the land would have a better title to it.