Be Careful Who You Buy From
Be careful who you buy from. Whether you are purchasing from a street vendor, an established merchant, or through e-commerce, purchasing used items can be tricky—especially if it turns out that what you just bought actually belongs to someone else. Under the English common law, if an innocent bona fide purchaser bought stolen property without knowing it was stolen, it became their property. When the laws of the United States were first created, that general rule was imported from England. However, as the American courts matured, so too did the law. That is why, in 1873, the Washington legislature passed an exception to the general rule that a buyer without prior notice they were buying stolen property would become the new owner. Now, even a good faith purchaser could no longer acquire a valid title to stolen property. The reasoning is fairly straightforward: a seller can only sell their rights to a piece of property. So, since a thief has no right to the goods they stole, they had nothing to sell in the first place. If the property is not stolen, but is simply owned by someone else, the doctrine of comparative innocence applies. This situation generally applies when someone simply misplaces their belongings, and a third party claims and sells the property. In those cases, the doctrine holds that where one of those two equally innocent persons must suffer, the one who was neglectful or negligent must bear the loss. Often times that is the person who neglectfully lost the property in the first place; but sometimes it could be the buyer. So, if the deal is too good to be true…you might just be right.
Stohr v. Randle, 81 Wn.2d 881, 882, 505 P.2d 1281 (1973)
Glaser v. Holdorf, 56 Wn.2d 204, 209, 352 P.2d 212 (1960)
Ketner Bros., Inc. v. Nichols, 52 Wn.2d 353, 356, 324 P.2d 1093 (1958)
Biles–Coleman Lumber Co. v. Lesamiz, 49 Wn.2d 436, 439, 302 P.2d 198 (1956)
Richardson v. Seattle–First Nat'l Bank, 38 Wn.2d 314, 316–17, 229 P.2d 341 (1951)
Dimension Funding, L.L.C. v. D.K. Assocs., Inc., 146 Wn. App. 653, 658, 191 P.3d 923 (Div. 2 2008)
Heinrich v. Titus-Will Sales, Inc., 73 Wn. App. 147, 868 P.2d 169 (Div. 2 1994)
RCW 10.79.050; RCW 62A.2–403