Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gregorydgraham t1_j4dlcnx wrote

Reply to comment by GreenThumbNZ 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

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