Dear M&M,
Now I never thought of the sweets. While we are now getting them up here in droves thanks to Free Trade, etc., we have traditionally had similar ones called Smarties. No kidding. If I eat them will I be smart? Don't know that one either.
A few points and then I will end this because, quite frankly, it is a v. complex area to be discussing without some expertise and I am the first to confess I don't know too much other than a gut feeling. My legal background has absolutely nothing to do with this field.
First of all, Michael, excellent points. But you say the courts have spoken. Query: Which ones? An American court in Virginia? What extra territorial application would that have in Canada/international waters? I think the real issue is that it is v. expensive to take out these expeditions and the Americans are the only ones prepared to put their money where there mouth is. Well here is a case in point of money talking. How could someone in Canada make a claim to ownership of the wreck if they don't have the funds to actually get there to stake their claim??
Secondly, while you are obviously right on the ownership bit, I think the point is that WSL/Cunard, etc. abandoned the ship, and never made a serious effort to claim ownership rights over it. In fact, the ownership would have passed to the insurance company that paid out the claims arising from the disaster. This co. went out of business so it was up for grads. RMS were not the first ones there, obviously Dr. Bob was. Maybe he should have claimed ownership. And, of course, it is not who owned the ship that really counts, it is where the disaster occurred from a legal and jurisdictional point. For example, who is taking jurisdiction over the Pam Am 747 disaster legal proceedings? The Scottish of course because the disaster occurred over Scotland, although the trial is in a neutral country, in this case Holland.
Thanx for the clarification of the Law of Sea.
Maureen, thanx for the helpful comments on how a trust works. Was IMM a trust or simply a huge combine...or both? (Somehow off the top of my head I think both.) If a trust, it would be interesting to know who were the beneficiaries. Surely JP could not have been both trustee and beneficiary. This is not legally possible. Regardless, I don't see the connection with the issue of jurisdiction. Have I missed something?
Regards,
G