Rights of finder of lost goods — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. Under Section 71, a person who finds goods and takes them into custody has:

   • No responsibility at all
   • The same responsibility as a bailee (correct answer)
   • Automatic ownership after 30 days
   • The right to sell immediately

   Explanation. Section 71 treats the finder as a bailee, subject to the full bailment framework of the Act.

2. Under Section 168, a finder's right to sue for a reward exists only if:

   • A specific reward was publicly offered (correct answer)
   • The goods are valuable
   • The finder is a minor
   • The owner refuses to identify himself

   Explanation. The finder can sue for a reward only if the owner had publicly offered one; otherwise there is only a right of lien for expenses.

3. Under Section 169, a finder may sell a thing commonly sold only when:

   • Immediately after finding them
   • The owner cannot be found with reasonable diligence or refuses on demand to pay the lawful charges, AND the thing is in danger of perishing or losing the greater part of its value, or the charges reach two-thirds of its value (correct answer)
   • After informing the police only
   • Whenever the finder wishes

   Explanation. Section 169 applies to a thing commonly sold and needs both sets of conditions: the owner cannot be found or refuses to pay the charges, and the thing is in danger of perishing or losing most of its value, or the charges are two-thirds of its value.

4. In Bridges v. Hawkesworth, the court held that the finder of banknotes lying loose in a shop was entitled to them because:

   • The shopkeeper had custody of the notes beforehand
   • The notes were never in the shopkeeper's custody before they were found (correct answer)
   • The notes were found on a public road
   • The shopkeeper waived his rights in writing

   Explanation. The notes lay loose on the shop floor and were never in the shopkeeper's custody before they were found, so the finder had the better claim.

5. In South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman, the rings found embedded in mud on the employer's land belonged to:

   • The employee who found them
   • The local government
   • The landowner (employer) (correct answer)
   • Nobody, as they were abandoned

   Explanation. A landowner has a better right than the finder to things that lie in or are attached to his land, and the rings lay in the mud at the bottom of the pool.

6. The key factual distinction between Bridges v. Hawkesworth and South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman is:

   • Whether the finder was an employee or a customer
   • Whether the object was loose or attached to the land (correct answer)
   • Whether the object was gold or paper
   • Whether the case was decided in India or England

   Explanation. A thing loose in a place open to the public favours the finder; a thing attached to or buried in the land favours the landowner.