Persons and things

There is a fundamental distinction to be made between these two legal actors. Persons hold rights
while things are the subject of rights.

How this distinction is made is complicated – a human being is a person from the moment of birth,
many animals are things. Corporations are legal persons and things as they both hold and are subject
to rights.

The case Joly v Pelletier, an American case, illustrates the difference between persons and things. Mr
Joly argues that he is a martian, court rules that a martian can not be a plaintiff as contemplated by
rules of civil procedure as martians who aren’t legal persons don’t hold rights. Mr Joly therefore,
couldn’t sue many of the defendants who were legal entities.

R v Kelly undermined the common law tradition that there was no property in human remains and
established that there was seeing as it has a usefulness and value in it, making it capable of being
stolen.

Caratun v Caratun questions whether a professional license (dentistry) constitutes property. No,
despite the obvious injustices in this case it can’t be, it’s not transferable, requires personal efforts of
the holder to be of any value in the future and because the only difference between it and any other
right to work is in its exclusivity.