In 2014, a detectorist discovered a treasure beyond his wildest dreams. During a stroll with his metal detector, Derek McLennan discovered a vein of Viking Treasures on the land of the Church of Scotland. Being of historical relevence of the region, the National Museums Scotland decided to aquire the so called "Galloway Hoard" for educational purposes. However, with this discovery troubles started to arrise. The laws of Scotland and the United Kingdom differ on what should be done with transactions like this. Scotland says that the money must only be paid to the owner, but the United Kingdom's laws say that the money must be split between the landowner and the person who found the treasure. Upon finding the treasure Derek McLennan is said to have made an agreement with the Church of Scotland to split the money (since it was found on their land). But since this agreement was never honored, the Church of Scotland is now suing to get what they think is rightfully theirs.
Questions:
What do you think should be done legally in this situation?
I believe that Derek is well within the law to keep the money for what he found. Since the treasure was found in Scotland he should fall under Scotish law.
Does their previous agreement hold Derek to any obligation?
I feel that despite being MORALLY obligated, Derek does not hold any legal obligations since he never signed any documents.
Replies
Good job Camden!
I agree that since the treasure was found in Scotland that they should follow the Scotish law since it says that payment is only required to be given to whoever finds the treasure north of the border, and that's where it was found. I don't think Derek making a promise should make him have legal obligation, but not coming through on that promise makes him seem like a bad guy.
I think that Derek should be able to keep the treasure. He did not steal he simply found it like you would find money in a washing machine. Everything is fair game if nobody claims it. Derek verbally consented to splitting the findings but it was never official. Derek shoudl be able to keep the money all to himself as he wishes.
I think that Derek should be able to keep half of the money due to him being the discover of the "treasures". There is no reason why he should be held on any legal obligations due to the fact that he didn't have nor sign a testimony(documents).
I think that the Church of Scotland was ripped off and should be suing and get all of the money instead of Derek who took it all and broke their agreement and he shood get a fine from the government. I think that it does because it is the law to do it but he still took it all and broke the law.
I think that he should be able to keep the money since he was the one who found it and since the find was in fact from Scotland it should be looked over by Scottish courts. He may be somewhat obligated but its nothing legal since he was the original finder and never once agreed to or singed anything before.
I think that the guy should get the money since he is the one that found it and it shouldn't be a big deal and i think they are making a bigger deal then what needs to be. I agree since he didn't sign anything i dont think anything should happen.
I think that if Derek was the one who found the treasure, he definantly should get some of the cut. If it weren't for him, the church would have never known it was there and never would have gotten any money for it. It's only fair that Derek got some of the money.
I think that if he found the treasure himself that he should not be sued. I think the person that found it should get the money because he found it on his own he didn't have help by the Scotland church to find it. I don't think Derek holds any legal obligation because he hasn't signed any documents
I agree that legally he is totally in the right. He didn't make any formal agreements to the Church of Scotland. However, a representetive was with Derek during his find, so I don't know how that would change things legally.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next