I've always had trouble with the idea that unincorporated associations do not necessarily entail contractual relations. If that's true, then I wonder if we should be calling them "associations" at all, since they would have no legal existence whatsoever. Unless what we're really getting at with religious organizations and the like is the idea that they're governed by some other (religious?) legal regime, and thus not subject to direct oversight by civil courts.

Stéphane Sérafin
Professeur adjoint | Assistant Professor
Faculté de droit, Section de common law |
Faculty of Law, Common Law Section




-----Original Message-----
From: William Swadling <william.swadling@law.ox.ac.uk>
Sent: May 22, 2021 6:00 AM
To: Dave Winterton <dave.winterton@gmail.com>; Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>
Cc: Obligations list <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: RE: ODG: Intention to Create Legal Relations

Attention : courriel externe | external email

Indeed. When I teach unincorporated associations, I stress that not all have contractual relationships between members, so that the contract-holding theory wouldn't work in a case like Leahy v AG of NSW (order of nuns).
Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Winterton <dave.winterton@gmail.com>
Sent: 22 May 2021 03:16
To: Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>
Cc: Obligations list <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: ODG: Intention to Create Legal Relations

Seems like an eminently sensible decision.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 May 2021, at 1:17 am, Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca> wrote:
>