In: Other
In the Bakalar case involving artwork stolen during World War II, do you agree with the court’s decision? Should the heirs get a chance to recover the drawing that was stolen from their ancestor? Or should Bakalar, who has owned the drawing for fifty years and knew nothing about its origin, be able to keep ownership?
In an individual B’s case, court’s verdict is considered right. Even though he had bought the painting and it is in his possession approximately for about 50 years. But title with respect to ownership remains doubt as the painting happens to be a stolen property.
The court gave the ruling based on the NY State rule that it does not encourage trade of stolen property. Thus, in the given case, even though painting is bought by an individual B he cannot own it as property is stolen from V’s in a refugee camp.
In order to claim title, individual V has to prove to the Court that painting is his ancestral property and they want to claim it back. Thus, individual V should be provided an opportunity to claim possession of the painting back. An individual B cannot keep painting with him as it happens to be a stolen property.
An individual B cannot keep painting with him as it happens to be a stolen property.