>

I'd like the house back that my great grandfather built and my grandfather sold. 
It is spectacular and definitely a treasured relic I don't have.
Ngārimu Blair, deputy chair for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei people, said most of the artefacts belonging to the tribe were looted by early “treasure hunters”. This, along with urbanisation and displacement, has left the tribe with only a handful of significant artefacts. 
“We have so very few of these taonga and treasures left in our possession,” he said. “When something like this comes up where we’re both excited, but also that sorrowful that we lost so much.” >


Blair cited the example of a carved pounamu (greenstone) club, or 'mere', which is part of the auction. According to a newspaper report, it was originally given by Ngāti Whātua chief Pāora Tūhaere to a British vice-admiral in 1886 on the condition that it remained in his family. Blair says now that the 'mere' has passed out of the family’s hands, it should be returned. 

Intergenerational takeback-sies probably isn't going to happen. Not the best example to focus on if they want people to support their case. 
The looted shit, however - more likely. >

If the old contract doesn't apply anymore, then they don't have any right to own it or transfer ownership anymore. >

At some point though you can’t expect informal deals to be enforced. Like, everyone involved in the deal is dead along with any existing family at the time. We often don’t enforce actual contracts after the people involved are dead. It happens with art occasionally. An artist will give a painting to a museum under the condition they never transfer it, but eventually the artist dies and the museum closes or relocates and time moves on. >

Almost all common law legal systems would recognize ownership towards the vice-admiral, giving it back to this Maori tribe would be charity, albeit probably done with moral conscience. You can't really claim something someone you don't know gave away 150 years ago without some sort of legal basis. >

I get wanting to throw out the legal bs but it's not like this is a domestic dispute, it's an international affair involving a large amount of money, you can't expect whomever purchased the item (likely in good faith) to simply give it up. If they do that's a huge accolade to them but what some group on the other side of the planet who had claim of it 150 years ago thinks of your sale currently might not come as a dealbreaker and I think that's fair. 
Family is a big deal in a lot of cultures, I know that if someone was selling my great great grandfather's heirlooms I'd definitely want them back but I wouldn't reasonably expect to receive them for no price paid either. >

..it's not theirs. >

You dont have to smash them with a hammer... jeez >

But then how will they enjoy the gooey centers? >

X Ray!!!! >

TIL MSN still exists >


MSN

It's MicroSoft Network. of course it exists, otherwise all those windows 95s that run your airplanes, aircrafct carriers and nukes would stop functioning. /s but no /s >

I feel bad for these groups, but I don't see how an auction house could legally just take someone else's legal property and give it away.  There usually has to be some proof that the specific items were stolen, and that the current owner wasn't a good faith purchaser, and then the government can seize the property.  Auction houses are constantly selling historical items with sketchy provenance.  It wouldn't be good for their business if customers thought there's a chance they would steal your property and put the impossible burden of proving its historical chain of title on you.
If these items mean that much to today's living descendants, they can always purchase them like any other collector.  I'd love to have some cool items that my great-great-great-great-grandfather made too, but I have no right to steal them.  Now if they can prove the items were stolen and that the current owner bought them knowing that, that's different. >

or the NZ government just buys them at auction and gives them back to the maori people. >

Why should the taxpayer pay for Maori to get back something they gave away, because they now don't like the fact they gave it away. That's absurd. >

Was everything "given away"? >

Not everything. Lots was stolen. Lots more was traded for steel tools, jewellery and firearms. No one seems to want to talk about that lot though. >

Rich people shuffling assets around. The price of nothing.