Quoting Daniel Jitnah ([email protected]): > I think the distinction here is the following. > > In the case of The Melbourne Twins, the biscuit is jointly owned by Lev > and Russel, and this will always be Lev and Russel.
As I said, courts attribute, in a formal sense, any property owned by an unincorporate association to the aggregate of its members. > However if later on the Melbourne Twins became two other individuals, > say Peter and Mary, and Lev and Russel cease to be The Melbourne Twins, > it does not follow that the biscuits will belong to the new Melbourne > Twins. Actually, you missed the track. I stated that I sold it to an unincorporated association called the Melbourne Twins, not to Lev and Russel, and signed a formalised written contract to that effect. Read, among other cases, Watson v J & AG Johnson Limited (1936) 55 CLR 63, the one regarding Loxton Club is Loxton, South Australia. The court held that ownership of the club vested in the ongoing membership, not in the particular members who were in the club at the time the property was acquired. And I agree that this should be pusued on luv-talk if at all. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
