Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9455969" data-attributes="member: 42582">To me, it seems more likely than not that WotC had already received legal advice, either from their own lawyers or ones that they hired.On the issue of who had what sort of proprietary claim to the cards, that seems to depend on the details of (i) the property and contract law of the jurisdiction where it took place, and (ii) the terms of various contracts, and (iii) the knowledge of various parties, including the youtuber who received the visit from the Pinkertons.For instance: in English law, mistaken payments of money may give rise to a constructive trust over the received money in the hands of the recipient: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_Manhattan_Bank_NA_v_Israel-British_Bank_(London)_Ltd" target="_blank">Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd - Wikipedia</a>In Australian law, a thief is at least sometimes said to hold the stolen property on constructive trust (I can't cite the cases off the top of my head).If A holds property on constructive trust for B, and then C takes title to the property from A with knowledge (actual or appropriately imputed) of B's claim, C may also hold on constructive trust for B.In those circumstances, B might be entitled to an order against C for reconveyance of the property back to them.I don't know the relevant details of this Pinkertons/MtG scenario. But to me, confident assertions that the youtuber had a stronger proprietary claim over the cards than WotC did seem a bit overdone. Some of the posts in this thread are just legally incorrect, or at least overly simplistic, treating the typical case of transaction between distributor, retailer and end consumer as if it is applicable in all circumstances, when it is not.</blockquote>

Verification