[Talisker]

They bought the couch in good faith. Whatever was in the couch went with it. They had no moral obligation to return the money, but since the couch was donated without the knowledge or consent of the actual owner, I think what they did was admirable.

I would say that contractually, their good faith purchase is trumped by the lack of knowledge or consent by the owner of the sale. So they actually had no legal claim to the money. Morally, of course, they certainly had no claim to money once they realized they could contact the owner and return it.

Practically speaking, however, since no one knew of their discovery but them, these issues conflated into a spiritual test - which they passed.

[Tax-chick]

Good summary.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“Practically speaking, however, since no one knew of their discovery but them, these issues conflated into a spiritual test - which they passed. “

Or as I have heard put another way, “doing the right thing when no one is looking”

Good they did the right thing. A clear conscience is a good thing.

[hoosierham]

Evidently those students are better morally than some freepers.

I applaud the students .

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Uh, so all those people who buy a very old painting that turns out to be a masterpiece or worth a lot...have to return it???Duh.

If whoever had the couch couldn’t notice the lumpiness or the woman’s kids were stupid enough not to check the couch for money or jewels ..I say the kids could keep the money.

[Bigg Red]

...these issues conflated into a spiritual test - which they passed.

&&&
Exactly. They did as any of us should do.