Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GreenThumbNZ t1_j4d4om3 wrote

Reply to comment by IDontTrustGod in ‘When something like this comes up where we’re both excited, but also that sorrowful that we lost so much.’ — A Māori tribe in New Zealand is calling for the return of treasured artefacts listed for sale by the auction house Sotheby’s by marketrent

The fact this one was gifted to someone and not plundered I don't think they really have a case at all.

41

David_the_Wanderer t1_j4dezxr wrote

The article says that the gift was made on the condition that it would remain in the man's family. I don't know if that would hold up in a court of law, but that got to count for something.

19

GreenThumbNZ t1_j4dfqqf wrote

So your telling me something gifted in 1886 that came with the condition that it stays in the family was told throughout generations to ensure that's the case... I think that's something that's been tacked on to try lay claim to something.

24

David_the_Wanderer t1_j4dj7h3 wrote

The article also says that this information is based on contemporary newspapers reports, so...

24

GreenThumbNZ t1_j4dv4r5 wrote

He also begged that he take it. Beggers can't be choosers they say!

−11

PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j4h9iwt wrote

So you can:

Return it to it's original culture who have been oppressed for years

or

Profit

Which seems fair to you?

5

Illum503 t1_j4e7c3a wrote

Is there such thing as a conditional gift, legally? Genuine question

7

awry_lynx t1_j4ide38 wrote

Honestly not sure. I know there's such a thing as conditional inheritances, and an inheritance is... kind of a gift?

5

SacredEmuNZ t1_j4egs2e wrote

Yeah but once someone else has it they are not privy to that condition.

If you brought a heritage house from someone whose grandfather was gifted it on the verbal request it stays in the family, is it your duty as the purchaser to take the financial hit and pass it on to the gifters ancestors, having not known these conditions beforehand?

I get it's a nice thing to do but there's zero legal obligation in either UK or NZ law, or any law in any country that I am aware of.

5

Mrs_Krandall t1_j4eollv wrote

I think in this case your beef is with the people who sold you something knowing it was not able to be sold.

Not with the original gifting party

4

gregorydgraham t1_j4dlcnx wrote

At least in Britain, a verbal contract is as good as a written one. Since the deed of gift specified the item must remain within the family, selling the taonga will restore ownership to Tūwhaere’s descendants

6

SacredEmuNZ t1_j4egz5a wrote

A verbal request about a gift 150 years ago in another country isn't a legally binding contract.

Also selling a gift to someone else doesn't mean the new owners then have to then give it to the original owners based on a request, or that it needs to be confiscated from the descendants of the receivers of the gift as they go to sell it. It's just a ridiculous concept with so many elements that stretch logic.

The whole premise of giving it back should simply be it's a nice thing to do, any kind of discussion of legality is nonsense.

4

gregorydgraham t1_j4erc71 wrote

150 years ago, New Zealand was British and “even after the creation of a New Zealand citizenship in 1948, New Zealand citizens also remained British subjects. The description ‘British subject’ did not appear on passports printed from 1974, and New Zealand citizens ceased legally to be British subjects on 1 January 1983.”

Breaching a condition of the contract would make the sale void and can be enforced by a court.

Limitations imposed on the initial transaction do carry over to third parties. For instance a factory consented by limiting the pollution emitted, can NOT emit more pollution just by being sold to a third party.

2