I have been reading the rules and can't find anything that describes it as wrong but if someone could point me in the right direction that would be great!
Here is a situation example: We will have Person A, B and C.
Say person A buys or receives an item, droid, vehicle or what-have-you from person B and then finds out before or after purchase that this stuff is docked. Person B admits that the items are docked and that person A will have to contact person C to get access to items because person C has control. Person C says "NO! You can not have the stuff you just bought from Person B even if it is legitly person B's stuff and not stolen. I just don't like you so I will keep your items forever!".
Person C admits that the stuff is not his property but will not allow Person A to pick his items.
Is there any negitive title for this action? Do we have thieft? No, person C didn't steal it. So what could this be? Just someone being a jerk by their negitive actions and not really effecting themselfs in a negitive way which is too bad.
FYI There is no situation that I am currently involved in like this so don't ask for information.
Edited By: Manta Birostris on Year 9 Day 345 15:54 ____________
In my opinion, Person C didn't do anything wrong. It was Person B being dishonest and selling something to Person A without specifying that it was docked. Chances are, Person B would have also contacted Person C to try to get the items undocked himself. Person B is the dishonest one, Person C is not necessarily in the wrong, but he's certainly not taking the nice road. Oh, and Person A got screwed :/
Agreed, the only wrong doing is if person B lied about the items being docked. If person A never asked, sad but true, it's on them. Person C has no legal or moral obligation to allow someone to access their goods or retrieve them for person A.
The moral of the story is that it is the buyer's responsibility to ask relevant questions before purchasing.
Be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the present.