Opinion ID: 2199033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Tacit Waiver.

Text: Under Czech law tacit waiver is the continuing failure to exercise a right where, considering the circumstances of the particular case, the other party was justified in relying on the assumption that the transaction had been finally wound up. Klang-Gschnitzer, Commentary to the General Civil Code. Tacit waiver is solely a matter of defense: it is available only to a person in possession. The Chancellor found, on evidence clearly justifying his finding, that Jan never had possession of the Leader shares in suit. We affirm his finding. We have not overlooked counsel's long and ingenious argument built upon the circumstance that Muska for some period had a safe deposit box in London in the joint names of himself and Jan. It is claimed that the Leader shares were deposited in this box for the account of Jan. We find the contention quite unconvincing. We can add nothing to the Chancellor's opinion on this point, which, to the extent that it deals with the matter of possession of the Leader shares, is hereby adopted as the opinion of this Court. The above conclusions dispose of Jan's three contentions with respect to the shares in suit. However, before concluding the discussion of this case, we must make quite clear the basis of our decision that the Leader shares in suit are the property of the plaintiffs. We hold (1) that title to these shares vested in the heirs by the deed of delivery of the Czech court, and (2) that Jan has not succeeded in divesting the heirs of that title on any of the grounds urged in this case. We decide nothing with respect to the ownership of the minority shares, concerning which much is said on the briefs. The New York courts, in awarding certain Leader shares to Tom and Marie, were careful to make the same distinction. Referring to the transfer to Jan of certain minority shares, as well as the agreements relating to the shares of Bata a.s., the Court of Appeals said: The status of these securities, however, must be evaluated in their own setting. 306 N.Y. 96, 115 N.E.2d 672, 677. Moreover, it is not necessary for the present decision to decide the difficult question of Jan Bata's status with respect to the heirs during the years when he was administering the Bata enterprise. Was he a sort of agent or trustee? Certainly, as the Chancellor said, no specific agency or trust was ever proved. Or was he acting primarily for himself under claim of right adverse to the heirs? Or was he merely with the consent of all the Chief and the owner of an interest in the enterprise? The answers to these questions are important in dealing with the minority shares, but for the present decision they are not required. We realize, as the Chancellor said (in his opinion on Jan's claim for compensation), that there is an implication in his main opinion that Jan owed a fiduciary duty to the heirs akin to that owed by a trustee or confidential agent. But that holding is not necessary to sustain his finding of title to the Leader shares. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for us to review it, and it is neither affirmed nor reversed. It follows that the Chancellor's decision on the merits must be affirmed.