tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post5902648351677754580..comments2024-03-27T04:46:33.198-07:00Comments on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: Focus on UK Artefact Hunting: Detecting Law Becomes More Complicated, Once Again the Glasgow FourthPaul Barfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-5938522117995726152013-03-24T23:50:07.939-07:002013-03-24T23:50:07.939-07:00I agree, it seems unlikely that a contract in whic...I agree, it seems unlikely that a contract in which one party is not making an informed choice can be legal, especially if the other party is deliberately withholding crucial information. <br /><br />It's very clear that the NCMD and other contracts don't set it out clearly for the farmer that non-treasure items can be very valuable. The 50% reward in the case of treasure bedazzles and diverts from the vastly more numerous and sometimes far more valuable treasure items yet some contracts provide for ALL non-treasure items to go to the finder. <br /><br />I did suggest that PAS should look into the legality of the contract in the case of the Crosby Garrett helmet. I wonder if they did? Had they done so, and it transpired the helmet belonged to the farmer alone I wonder if it would now be in a museum?<br /><br />Legal or not, contracts are potentially licenses to bamboozle - yet the Code recommends (to detectorists alone) they should be signed and PAS recommends that to landowners as well. <br /><br />Farmer Brown, who campaigns for owners rights alone, says poppycock. The only basis on which people should access a farmers land he says is on the basis everything is his and everything must be brought to him for a decision on what happens to it. No contract needed because that's already the law!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-25610736363800272852013-03-24T23:25:59.411-07:002013-03-24T23:25:59.411-07:00Cheers. I fear landowners might be told that their...Cheers. I fear landowners might be told that their ignorance is their own fault (in the same way that it isn't illegal to exploit a customer's ignorance or other circumstances by charging them more than your competitors). But I think it's enough of a grey area that I'd be interested to see a lawyer tear the argument to humiliating shreds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com