Secondarily, the auctioneer would claim that he contracted for sale of a safe, not the goods within it. He cannot be classified as a merchant in kind, because he deals is various goods of varying classifications. Therefore he has a claim to the money, via the “not abandoned” theory of property. However, the courts would find that most likely the safe was sold “as-is” and therefore his claim would fail.

Finally…the locksmith would claim the money as found property. However, unless the money has a valid reward attached to it, he has no claim, which is why he called the police. If there is a reward, that serves as a unilateral contract from the original holder of title to the money to the finder of the property and the court will honor that contract above all others. The holder of original title, by issuing a reward did not properly abandon or lose the money and has the most viable claim to hold the property against all others.

Good luck on the bar exam