Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lowflier84 t1_j9w3kpx wrote

Your definition is fine, it's just important to remember that ownership isn't just socially accepted, it's legally defined. And because it's legally defined, we use the law to place limits on what owners can and can't do with their property. This may be for either moral or practical reasons, but the limitations still exist.

2

No-Eggplant-5396 OP t1_j9w562m wrote

My issue is with the concept of partial ownership. It makes no sense to me. Do the legal definitions occasionally apply to a co-owner and occasionally not apply to a co-owner? Or rather, the legal definitions hold absolutely but rather pertain to a more abstract interpretation of the original property?

1

lowflier84 t1_j9wc32v wrote

I think where you're getting wrapped around the axle is that you are imagining co-owners as being able to exercise the full rights of ownership independent of each other, and this is not the case. In this situation, there is usually a contract that exists that will define the rights of each co-owner, how decisions about the property are made, how disputes will be resolved, etc.

1

No-Eggplant-5396 OP t1_j9wotz1 wrote

Is there a minimum right? Granted co-owners can't exercise full rights of ownership. Is there a minimum right that cannot be partitioned between legal persons?

1

lowflier84 t1_j9wwc84 wrote

No, there is no minimum. It's completely dependent upon the contract that defines the terms.

1

No-Eggplant-5396 OP t1_j9x075l wrote

So hypothetically, one could own a share of a share of a company depending on the contract?

1