How Did Wendy Affect The Ability To Claim The Eggs As Personal Property?

In order to determine who can potentially claim the eggs and propose damages, the following issues must be addressed:
1. Brendy and Wendy: How does the legal relationship between Brenda and Wendy affect their ability to claim the eggs as personal property?
a) Gift: Did Brenda intend to give Wendy full beneficial interest in the eggs, constituting a gift?
b) Trust: Did Brenda intend to retain interest through a resulting trust?
2. Wendy and Deb: What interest, if any, did Wendy confer on Deb when she gave her the eggs? Gift or Conversion: In giving the eggs to Deb, did Wendy give a gift or is she liable for conversion?
3. Ruth’s Claim as Finder: whether Ruth’s actions fulfill the requirements to constitute a finding, entitling her to the eggs.

1. Brenda and Wendy
Brenda and Wendy’s claims to the eggs as property and potential entitlement to damages will depend on whether Brenda intended to pass full and beneficial interest by way of a gift or whether she intended to retain interest signifying a resulting trust. When Brenda purchased the eggs she became the owner however it seems clear from the facts that Brenda transferred the possession of the eggs to Wendy. What is not immediately clear however is whether through the transfer of possession, Brenda intended to pass all her title through the delivery of a gift or whether she intended to retain an interest which is therefore indicative of a trust.
In this case, there appears to be a situation in which the possession of a physical chattel was transferred for the use and disposal of one party without affecting other interests held by the transferring party. In the concurring result of Yanner v. Eaton 1999 H.C.A., Justice Gummow defines property as “a description of a legal relationship with a thing.” Justice Gummow’s definition is helpful in understanding that property in an object can be both “tangible and intangible.” These concepts of property are further described in Yanner to illustrate the capability of a single object to afford different rights to different parties “concurrently” as well as being capable of having distinct rights where “ownership may be divorced from possession.” Applying this concept to the facts, it appears that both Brenda and Wendy have property interests in the eggs. Monetary value is indicative of property as evidenced by Yanner v. Eaton’s example of debt as property. Brenda’s interest encompasses the purchase value of the eggs while Wendy’s appears to be the physical possession of the eggs by virtue of a resulting trust.
Gift:
According to Re Bayoff Estate “a gift is a gratuitous transfer of the ownership of property.” If the eggs were a gift from Brenda to Wendy then Wendy’s claim to the eggs as personal property would be superior to Brenda’s as she would hold full and beneficial ownership.

In the absence of clear indica of a gift, it will be difficult for Wendy to claim full beneficial ownership. Hoiland v. Brown 1980 B.C.L.R. clarifies that there is a “heavy onus upon a claimant” of a gift “without consideration” at Canadian common law. If the eggs were a gift, it appears they were given without consideration as there is no evidence in the facts that clearly indicated a gift. In the absence of consideration, the eggs may still constitute a valid gift if Wendy is able to prove that Brenda’s intention included the full transfer of interest and title to

Wendy.
In order to constitute a valid inter vivos gift, Re Bayoff Estate 2000 S.K.Q.B. applies the principles found in The Principles of Property Law in which Ziff defines three requirements of a completed inter vivos gift: “an intention to donate, acceptance of the gift and a sufficient act of delivery.” The first two requirements seem to be absent within the facts and it is likely that their absence will significantly weaken Wendy’s claim that the eggs were a gift.
At the time of the transaction, Brenda does not appear to have intended to make a donation nor does it seem probable that Wendy would have expected this. While shopping, Wendy realized she did not have money with her however she “still wished to purchase” the eggs which is indicative that Wendy does not expect the eggs to become a gift. This conclusion can be distinguished from a situation where the eggs may have constituted a gift if, upon realizing she did not have any money, Wendy indicated she had no intention of buying the eggs and Brenda offered to purchase them regardless. However, since Wendy intended to purchase the eggs at the time of the transaction and there is no other indication from Brenda that is indicative of a gift, it appears neither party intended the eggs to be a gift.
Trust:
Since Brenda has retained an interest in property that is in the possession of another the relationship could have been described as a bailment or a trust. Brenda’s interest in the eggs is not capable of being characterized as a bailment. This is because while the intangible value constitutes property, it is not a chattel. The analysis found in National Trust Co. Ltd. v. Wong Aviation Ltd. et al. 1969 S.C.C and the application found in Punch v. Savoy supports that the subject of a bailment must be a tangible object because the root of bailment is regarding the protection and delivery of the chattel.

The monetary value of an object could therefore equate the existence of a resulting trust.

Monetary value is however indicative of property as evidenced by Yanner v. Eaton’s example of debt as property. The initial issues in Hoiland v. Brown similarly regard the deliberation of whether a chattel “left in the possession” of another for their “use” constituted a gift or a resulting trust. While the chattel in Hoiland was found to constitute a gift, it can be distinguished from the facts at hand because the claimant satisfied the onus to prove that “there was indicia of a gift.” A contributing factor to this finding was that the chattel had never been in possession of the purchaser. In contract to the fact of this case, Brenda did have possession of the eggs both before and after the purchase. They were put in her cart, paid for and subsequently retained by Brenda. It is only after the eggs were put in Brenda’s car and driven to Wendy’s apartment that the eggs were relinquished from Brenda’s possession into the care of Wendy. When the eggs Brenda purchased were left in the possession of Wendy Brenda gave the impression that they were for her use but, as indicated above, never indicated the intent to transfer full title and beneficial interest to Wendy. Supported by persuasive case law found in Yanner, it seems Brenda’s actions imply that she intends to hold beneficial interest proportionate to her

contribution.
2. Wendy and Deb
Since it appears likely that the eggs were not a gift to Wendy, it accordingly cannot seem probable that the eggs given to Deb by Wendy constitute a valid gift. Regardless of whether the transfer meets all the requirements of a gift outlines above, Barberree v. Bilo (1991) A.L.Q.B., applies Lord Denning’s judgment that “no one can give a better title than he himself possesses.” Since it seems likely that Wendy only held possessory rights and did not have full beneficial title to the eggs, she accordingly cannot give full beneficial title to Deb through a gift. Without having full or beneficial title, Wendy has committed a conversion by transferring any rights greater than possession of the eggs to Deb.
3. Ruth’s Claim
For a valid claim to the eggs through the law of finders, Ruth must have legally acquired ownership rights to the eggs in accordance the “obligations of the finder” outlined in Parker v. British Airways Board 1982 QB. In order for a finder to acquire ownership rights, the object must have “been abandoned or lost” and they must have taken “reasonable” measures to determine the true owner. Ruth does not appear to have a strong claim to the eggs through finding, as Deb doesn’t appear to have had any intention to abandon the eggs. This lack of intention can potentially be inferred from the amount of time Deb left the eggs unattended. The few minutes Deb was likely away to have a cigarette doesn’t seem to meet the requirements of reasonably attempting to find the true owner.
Conclusion

Since Brenda paid for the full value of the eggs and did not relinquish her interest by giving the eggs as a gift, she is entitled to be compensated proportionate to the amount she contributed. Since Wendy did not have full beneficial ownership, she committed a conversion when she gifted the eggs to Deb. Therefore since Wendy has breached her duty as a trustee, she is responsible to reimburse Brenda for the full cost of the eggs. Ruth does not appear to have a valid claim to the eggs entitling her to damages, as she did not fulfill the obligations required to constitute a finding.

PART 2
Issue
Whether Ruth’s claim is strengthened by the law of accession?

How would evidence that the eggs are an approved Anishnaabek traditional food affect the prior claims to the eggs?
Analysis
If the eggs are held by the collective ownership of the Anishnaabek people it is necessary to consider that any infringement on their collective rights would prevail over the claimants mentioned above. Seneca Nation of Indians v. Hammond et al. 1974 holds that when property of “Indians” is held in common and is transferred without the consent of the group, there is no “agreement or interest” which can be given in “defense, or mitigation of damages.”
In order to determine if the eggs are collectively owned, United States v. Corrow 1997 considers items of “cultural patrimony” as protected by collective rights. To determine if the eggs are considered cultural patrimony, the test established in Corrow can be applied: In order to consider an item as cultural patrimony the object must be of “(1) ongoing historical, cultural or traditional importance; and (2) be considered inalienable by the tribe by virtue of the object’s centrality in tribal culture.”
Instead of the analysis focusing on the legal relationships between parties, this analysis would be distinguished by its focus on the cultural importance of the eggs to the community. If the eggs constitute an item of cultural patrimony, it seems likely that all parties mentioned above could be liable in damages to the Anishnaabek/