http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rrer=yahoo


Is it me, or is this just plain ridiculous. Since when has ignorance been a defence? Surely if you're spending a lot of money on a pedigree dog, you'd want to get it chipped, in which case you'd soon find out it already had one.

I'd get a mongrel chipped.



I would say that as the puppy was with them for only a couple of weeks, and has been with the new owner for 9 months, that it is in the best interests of the dog to stay with the new owner.


*Edit*

Oh and typical sensationalist reporting from the Mail. Did the photographer wave an onion under the girl's eyes.

So if I buy a new car and then a couple of weeks later someone nicks it and sells it to someone who buys it "in good faith" then they get to keep the car?

It just doesn't make sense at all.

Surely that wouldn't stand up in court.
Receiving stolen goods 'in good faith' isn't a justification for keeping them.

"Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor's title, amount to theft of the property."

The police have determined that the man now with the dog did not steal it and committed no crime. They have no further interest in the case.

As in most civil matters, you basically have to be rich to afford justice. To pursue the investigation to it's conclusion could cost billions, and as the lawyers grow fat the dog will grow old and die and the children will never benefit. I assume the puppy was insured if it was so valuable, in which case it's up to them - pursue in the courts, or replace the puppy.

If not, far cheaper to simply replace the puppy yourself and perhaps offer a "dead or alive" style reward for the thieving b*stards nuts on dog bowl. I'm sure someone would help for a smaller fee than a lawyer...

In this case, the handling stolen goods bit comes into play. This is why you need to do checks on the car before you buy.

But the dog was stolen also so is technically stolen goods. Equally the dog had a chip which specified the rightful owner.

It all seems very odd to me.

I think that the police are wrong not to retrieve the dog. The "I bought it in good faith" might actually be used to hide a preplanned crime.