ELI5 what is ownership?

Submitted by No-Eggplant-5396 t3_11b4m8l in explainlikeimfive

After googling for a bit, I came to the conclusion that ownership was a socially accepted relationship between a legal person and property. The relationship allows legal persons to exchange properties or use property without retaliation. But this doesn't make sense for co-ownership. If a co-owner exchanges property or uses property without the consent of the other co-owners, then the co-owner may experience retaliation. So I am not sure what ownership means exactly.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ukAdamR t1_j9w2j1v wrote

The key point about ownership is enforcement of such arbitrary relationship between one legal entity and property or another legal entity.

Legal entity instead of "person" matters because ownership is largely not just between a person (or people) and property. For example a company is often recognised a legal body in its own right also capable of ownership of property, and a sovereign state is also able to own property.

I could claim ownership of, let's say your phone. However I could not enforce this ownership because there is a greater power arbitrating that you own your phone. That power being the ratified law of your land acknowledging the process in which you legally purchased your phone. If I stole your phone though, and no law enforcement was able to recover it, then your ownership bond is broken as I could now enforce my own ownership. On the flip side such an arbitrating power can equally enforce against your ownership of your phone, for example if it should decide your phone is to be seized as evidence in crime. So you only own your phone if appropriate enforcement continuously upholds your ownership of it.

We could think way beyond. Can we claim ownership of the planet Saturn? Of course, but neither of us, or realistically any arbitrating power, have any chance of enforcing that claim making it worthless.

4

tdscanuck t1_j9w2yt6 wrote

Adding on for OP, the key with co-ownership is that the "legal person" involved in the ownership is a legal entity made up of *both* the co-owners. There's a contract underneath that lays out the terms of how the co-owners do things. If one co-owner tries to sell the property without the permission of the others 1) they've breached the ownership contract, and the other owners can retaliate and 2) the legal entity that owns the property (which is *all* the co-owners) hasn't agreed to sell it...one co-owner, by themselves, isn't the legal entity that owns the property so they have no right to sell it.

2

furtherdimensions t1_j9w3b4e wrote

>one co-owner, by themselves, isn't the legal entity that owns the property so they have no right to sell it.

But they can sell their ownership stake IN it, which can result in all sorts of weird and wacky legal shenanigans.

3

tdscanuck t1_j9w3v14 wrote

Good point. Which is why the mechanics of co-ownership agreements are so important, and so complicated, regardless of what thing they're owning. There are *so* many ways it can get screwed up and so many eventualities that might not be fully covered by any agreement.

1

ukAdamR t1_j9w49xz wrote

Very true, and a big example of this happening are company shares being exchanged literally millions of times every trading day of stock markets worldwide.

Much of the key legal rights fall within having a majority of control. E.g. if you own 51% of a company then you would typically have a controlling share of it, opening possibilities of rights more significant to the remaining minority co-owners.

Ownership of any proportion all revolves around what the greatest power is both willing and capable of enforcing towards the particular property, asset, or "thing". Different kinds of "things" get different rules and these rules can change at any time.

1

No-Eggplant-5396 OP t1_j9w7nds wrote

So I own my phone more than you own my phone when there is greater chance that a local court will rule that I own my phone?

2

DiamondIceNS t1_j9wbyde wrote

When I worked at the DMV, one thing I learned very early when working with vehicle titles (i.e. deeds of ownership, but for vehicles) with multiple names on them is to pay careful attention to the conjunction between the names.

"Alice and Bob" is a different kind of ownership to "Alice or Bob". And meant that, to do anything with the title, you needed consent from everyone involved. Or, on the other hand, meant that any person on the title could do basically anything they wanted with it with only their own consent.

The conjunction was set up at the time the title was issued, and by filling out the application with a particular conjunction selected, you were giving your consent to play by the rules of that conjunction. So, by signing a form with an "or" conjunction between you and someone else, you are implicitly giving permission to the other person to give your consent for you. If that isn't what you want, that's what "and" is for.

Point being, in systems where robust rules are needed, they can be made. This is really just the basis of how all rules and agreements are created. The abstract concept of "ownership" is no different. It can be whatever you define it to mean.

3

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

Square_Category_4611 t1_j9ybgvj wrote

Owning something is having some rights to use property (either things or land). A common analogy is that property rights are like a bundle of sticks, and different types of property come with different rights.

Joint ownership comes with different “sticks” than sole ownership (because you can’t change someone else’s property rights by yourself)

Buying a book or a video game comes with different “sticks” than buying a blank notebook (the author or programmer still keep some property rights to the ideas in the book and game, but you can share whatever you want about your notebook).

Your question goes to the heart of property law, and you can find lots of interesting examples of how different societies have thought about property through history.

1