Problem: There Really Are No Elaborations Being Applied. the Application Takes One Fact

Two general rules govern the issue at hand. The rule regarding lost property is that property is considered lostif the owner has involuntarily parted with it and is ignorant of its location. The rule regarding mislaid property is that property is considered mislaid when an owner intentionally places the property somewhere with intent to reclaim the property but then forgets where it has been placed. Here, because the wallet was seemingly placed in a wall, it is likely that the court will find it to be mislaid property. As a result, it is unlikely that Langdon will receive the money.

Problem: There really are no elaborations being applied. The application takes one fact and makes an assumption about it. The application doesn’t really even take anything that was said in the general rules and apply them.

Two general rules govern the issue at hand. The rule regarding lost property is that property is considered lostif the owner has involuntarily parted with it and is ignorant of its location. The rule regarding mislaid property is that property is considered mislaid when an owner intentionally places the property somewhere with intent to reclaim the property but then forgets where it has been placed. Here, because the wallet was seemingly placed in a wall, and it unlikely that anyone would place $324 there without intending to return, it is likely that the court will find the wallet to be mislaid property. As a result, it is unlikely that Langdon will receive the money.

Problem: Again, there are no elaborations and makes a logical assumption without first articulating any type of rule.

Two general rules govern the issue at hand. The rule regarding lost property is that property is considered lostif the owner has involuntarily parted with it and is ignorant of its location. The rule regarding mislaid property is that property is considered mislaid when an owner intentionally places the property somewhere with intent to reclaim the property but then forgets where it has been placed. Here, because the fact that the wallet was placed on a duct demonstrates the intent of the original owner, thus it is likely that the court will find the wallet to be mislaid property. As a result, it is unlikely that Langdon will receive the money.

Problem: There are again no elaborations. Although the application does refer to intent, that is really only one aspect of the rule. The application should apply the elaborations (what the court really looks at) to the fact pattern.

Two general rules govern the issue at hand. The rule regarding lost property is that property is considered lostif the owner has involuntarily parted with it and is ignorant of its location. The rule regarding mislaid property is that property is considered mislaid when an owner intentionally places the property somewhere with intent to reclaim the property but then forgets where it has been placed. Here, because no one has claimed the wallet, it is likely that the true owner is ignorant of its location. Thus, it is likely that the court will find the wallet to be lost property. As a result, it is likely that Langdon will receive the money.

Problem: Although the application applies part of the general rule, it also applies a rule (no one claimed the item) that was not articulated as a rule to be applied. The application must apply the rules that have been articulated.