View Single Post
olf's Avatar
Posts: 304 | Thanked: 1,246 times | Joined on Aug 2015
#42
Originally Posted by javispedro View Post
That interpretation is still wrong. The "transfer of the right of possession" does not happen just because the museum lends you a tablet.
Nope, the act of lending is one form of a "transfer of the right of possession".
And while the act of stealing does not include an explicit "transfer of the right of possession", it results in a "adverse possession".

Originally Posted by javispedro
That would imply that you can assign possession to someone else other than you or the museum, and that the museum would not be able to reclaim the possession of the tablet, which is also absurd.
No, because a "transfer of the right of possession" only allows the recipient to possess something (and that may be additionally limited in time and space), not (necessarily / implicitly / usually) to "transfer of the right of possession" again. I.e., it is not (automatically) transitive.
It takes "ownership" (being almost equal to but exactly a subset of having "property rights" of something) to be able to "transfer the right of possession" at free will.

I assume(d) that I was only given the "right of possession and usage" of that "museum tablet", likely limited to (have not read the contract details, wanted to see classical Dutch paintings) the duration of my visit, the museum grounds etc.

Last edited by olf; 2021-03-27 at 00:55.