View Single Post
10-16-2003, 03:10 AM
Registered User
MojoJojo's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,351
vCash: 500
There is an old saying that posession is nine tenths of the law. There is a good deal of common law precedence awarding property rights based on which party has actually been using, maintaining, improving, etc the property (usually land) in dispute. I think Lord Stanley's successor would have to prove that the cup was somehow stolen or taken from him unlawfully. The most obvious example of a plaintiff winning this kind of suit are cases involving artwork stolen by the Nazi's. Even if Stanley can demonstrate that the cup was stolen, after 60 years it will be difficult, especially since the first question will be why did he wait so long to reclaim what he feels is rightfully his (and its not as if he didn't know where its been all this time).

Anyway, if the Stanley cup was still an amateur challenge cup, hardly anyone would care about it. Its glory stems from its history, a significant chunk of which is intertwined with the NHL.

MojoJojo is offline