Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_Wisest_Wizard t1_j4e7sw1 wrote

Reply to comment by mrsandrist 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 one wasn't stolen. "It was originally given by Ngāti Whātua chief Pāora Tūhaere to a British vice-admiral in 1886, on condition it remained in the man’s family, according to a newspaper report at the time." So I don't see how they can stop it. Not a legally binding requirement to keep it in the family.

37

feeltheslipstream t1_j4ea9na wrote

Documented verbal contract?

10

Whitmil t1_j4edyy2 wrote

Did they document what should happen to it if it leaves the families possession?

−4

Mrs_Krandall t1_j4eoevu wrote

It gets returned to Ngati Whatua

I think that's rather clear.

17

Bionicbawl t1_j4jdfju wrote

You can legally bestow property on someone for just a “named person’s” lifetime. Then it’s required to be given to either an owner, their heirs, or a designated individual. It’s not uncommon.

Additionally there are more and more laws being made internationally in support of repatriation of indigenous artifacts to still existing peoples.

5

The_Wisest_Wizard t1_j4je1k7 wrote

Right but that's not what allegedly happened here. I don't know the laws here but I'm guessing either a statute of frauds equivalent or rule against perpetuities equivalent would make this request non-binding.

2