The whole aspect of business law and legal environment has diverse and distinct issues that need a critical analysis. As a matter of fact, there are various dynamics that are supposed to be understood (Dondi, 2004, p. 9). This is based on the fact that there are occasions where the law is misunderstood or misinterpreted to suit individual needs yet it is supposed to be applied wholesomely.
As far as our case is concerned, this is an ownership issue that needs to be sorted out. Ownership can be looked at from different perspectives. This is from a business and legal environment point of view. In this case, ownership revolves around exclusive rights to a given property. It should be known that the word property can mean various things (Spiro, 2008, p. 12). This can be land, intellectual property or even a given object.
To evaluate the whole aspect of ownership, these rights can be held by different people through separation. In this case, ownership has been used as a basis for various societal issues in our society. Since the process of ownership is very complex, it has been used as a basis for various concepts (Dondi, 2004, p. 13). It should be known that an individual can be stripped off ownership rights depending on the prevailing situation at a given period of time. This can be through legal means, exchange or selling.
Wholesomely, it should be known that ownership is self regulating because the person in possession of a given property will enjoy all the economic benefits that come with it (McGhee, 2000, p. 9). This resonates well with our case because the person in possession of Mr. McGuire’s record breaking ball ended up with $3 million because such balls are very valuable.
In my own opinion, Mr. Patrick Hayashi is the rightful owner of the ball. This is based on various approaches that can be evaluated from all perspectives. The ownership of this ball generates a lot of issues and debate because it will be very valuable (McGhee, 2000, p. 15). This is based on the fact that it was another new record that had broken Mr. McGuire’s initial record of 72 runs.
As far as the case is concerned, when Barry Bonds hit his record, the ball went to the sitting arena. In this case, there was no written agreement that the ball will be hit for a specific person to pick on it. This means that it was open for anybody who was sitting in the arena watching the game (Spiro, 2008, p. 17). As a matter of fact, none of the fans was an original owner of the ball as far as ownership rights are concerned.
Mr. Alex Popov had come to watch the game in anticipation that he will be the eventual owner of the record breaking ball. This can be explained from the fact that he had brought his baseball gloves to catch any balls that were likely to come in the stands. Just for clarification, it should be known that this was his own personal decision as there was no written agreement with the teams or organizers that he will be given exclusive rights to such balls (Spiro, 2008, p. 23).
As much as videos show Mr. Alex Popov’s gloves on the ball, he has no right to claim ownership yet this was open to all fans. Mr. Patrick Hayashi ended up with the ball after a melee from fans. In this case, Mr. Popov could have joined the melee to fight for the ball instead of crying foul yet this was an open affair for everybody (Dondi, 2004, p. 25). Therefore, Mr. Alex Popov’s case will not hold water because there was no legal supporting framework as far as ownership of the ball is concerned.
Reference list
Dondi, A. (2004). Legal Ethics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
McGhee, J. (2000). Snell’s Equity. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
Spiro, W, G. (2008). The Dynamics of Law. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.