Originally Posted by tompe
I do not see what tjis is a comment to. But when things burn up you cannot replcae it either so I do not see your point. We accept that things burn up so why is it strange that there can be other situations where we accept that things are lost?
So, you are robbed at gun point. An the thief takes your wedding ring, which had once been your grandmother's wedding ring. The thief sells it to someone who had no idea it was stolen. One day you see someone wearing your ring, and the ring is definitely yours as it has a unique inscription on the inside.
Your ring is not the same as being lost. If you lose something there is a chance you can find it. In this case you did find.
Your ring isn't destroyed either. You just found it.
The thief harmed the person who he robbed, and I can understand the sentiment that the harm should end at this point. It shouldn't be right to now harm the person who bought the ring in good faith by forcing them to give back the ring and be out the money they paid for it.
Someone is going to get hurt. There is just no way around it. So which one should it be? The person who was robbed or the person who bought stolen property?
Who would you rather be, the person who was robbed of an heirloom, or the person who has to give back jewelry and now be out the purchase price? It would suck to be either one, but loosing the heirloom is worse. So I believe that the right thing to do is to give the person back their heirloom.