DD> Do such Unincorporated Associations require
DD> a chairman(ager/ess), secretary or treasurer?

AWL> No, as long as there is some sort of individual or
AWL> committee in charge, the titles are pretty meaningless.

RS> Thats not right, and they aint normally 'in charge'
RS> even in associations, incorporated or not.

AWL> OK, how about excercising the powers of management then?

Still useless.

AWL> Otherwise you could avoid the Common Law stuff
AWL> on Unincorporated Associations by calling your
AWL> organisational head "Grand Poobah" instead of President.

RS> Yes, but pity your wild claims about what qualifys as an unincorporated
RS> association are just crap. That consideration only apply if you really
RS> do have an unincorporated association, and Fido aint one.

AWL> Then what the fuck is it Rod.

Its a group of unpaid volunteers. Nothing like an unincorporated
association. So is a group of droid housewives who choose to meet
down the beach on a particular day to yack away about the ankle biters.

AWL> It is an association, and it isn't incorporated...

Pity that that doesnt make Fido an unincorporated association.
Neither does a group of people who share the surname NURK.

DD> Do they have to have an Annual general meeting?

AWL> No. As long as there is some sort of organised
AWL> discussion of administration (Sysop/*C echos
AWL> could be considered permanent session meetings)

RS> Oh bullshit. Next you will be trying to claim that a group of people
RS> who choose to meet down the pub on a particular evening regularly is
RS> also an unincorporated association, its complete tripe Alex.

AWL> They could well be.

Nope, Alex wouldnt actually know what constitutes
an unincorporated association if it bit him on the
bum. You sure you aint related to Richard Heppell ?

AWL> If they can be recognised from outside as having
AWL> membership in some named body such as "Pete's
AWL> Avengers" but not "Pete's Friday Night Crowd."

Fraid it aint quite that simple Alex. Whether or not they choose
to call themselves something. Says SFA about any risk of being exposed
to any liability for what another person in that group might do.

AWL> If they have a "Grand High Pisspot" or a titled "Keeper
AWL> of the Loose Change" then they could be an association.

Nope, fraid not.

AWL> If they nominate someone to do things on behalf of the
AWL> membership (such as booking the back room, tipping the
AWL> waitresses at Christmas, paying and recovering deposits etc)...

Still not sufficient. The group of droid housewives could say
have the bringer of the drinks rotate weekly. And STILL not be an
unincorporated association in the sense that you have any liability
for what another person in that group might or might not do.

AWL> If people percieve them to have some kind of structure and
AWL> existance outside of the individuals that make up the group...

Still complete and utter tripe. With the droid housewives,
one may be considered to be a better predictor of the weather
than the others, and may ring around and cancel a particular
day when it looks like raining. Still doesnt make them a
member of an unincorporated association, exposed to legal
liability for what another person in that group might do.

DD> Are they obliged to keep minutes of any meetings?

AWL> No, but not doing so means that it comes down
AWL> to personal recollections (or logged e-mail :-)...

DD> Are they required to hold periodic elections?

AWL> No, Life Appointments can be valid. As can any other form of appointment..

RS> But that doesnt automatically mean they are an unincorporated association.

AWL> But it would be hard for them to claim otherwise.

Bullshit. And says SFA about legal liability.

AWL> If they are an association (and formal Rules
AWL> go a long way to proving that they are)

Nope. You can have a rule that frisbee tossing is the game.
And that say the US code of frisbee tossing is the code
used, if such a thing exists. Says SFA about legal liability.

AWL> or at least they are not any other kind of body
AWL> recognised by the Law (Religious Order, School, etc)
AWL> and are not incorporated (or exempt form doing so (such
AWL> as P&Cs)) then they may find themselves treated as one.

Nope. You falling into the absolutely classic logic trap that
just because SOME associations of people are indeed unincorporated
associations as far as the law is concerned, that all those YOU
claim are too actually are. It complete and utter tripe Alex.

AWL> Remember that an association is just short hand for a defined group of
AWL> individuals, like a partnership... You sue the individuals collectively,
AWL> the association is just a handle to hold them by. Their membership list
AWL> determines who is and who is not a party to the action...

RS> Thats the absolutely classic logic trap that just because cats
RS> have tails, doesnt say that every animal with a tail is a cat.

AWL> An association is a group of people.
AWL> Therefor a group of people is an association - wrong.

Yes, and thats where you are fucking up with your wild
claims about what constitutes an unincorporated association.

AWL> However if a group of people doesn't fit any other catagory,

Pity all the ones we were discussing do Alex.

AWL> and act together in some common purpose,

Thats not sufficient to make them an unincorporated association Alex.

AWL> then they are an association

Not in the sense of your wild claims about legal liability Alex.

AWL> (other catagories could (I guess) be considered special
AWL> cases of association, like partnership, corporation,
AWL> religious order, school, university etc)

Still missing the point utterly. Its quite possible to have a group of
people who falling none of those categorys just above, which are ALSO
not part of an unincorporated association as far as any legal liability

(Continued to next message)

--- PQWK202