Colonel Brandon of the New Zealand army has just returned from overseas duty after surviving

a harrowing ordeal. While overseeing a routine mine-clearing operation, a guerrilla operation

attacked Colonel Brandon and his men, taking the Colonel hostage. The intention of the

guerrilla fighters was to use the Colonel as a bargaining chip to negotiate the release of some

of their incarcerated members. However, after learning that New Zealand does not negotiate

with terrorists, the group sold Colonel Brandon to black market doctors. These doctors removed

a kidney and part of his liver and sold them on the black market as donor organs. Colonel

Brandon is subsequently rescued before any other body parts can be harvested from him. Upon

returning to New Zealand, he discovers that the bodily materials removed from him have ended

upon in Auckland with a reputable surgeon, Alexander Dane. Dr Dane purchased the organs,

believing them to have been legally obtained.

Colonel Brandon wishes to prevent Dr Dane from using the bodily materials, arguing that they

are his property. Dr Dane, on the other hand, argues that the bodily materials cannot constitute

"property", but if they did, he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

(a) How is it that Colonel Brandon was sold by the guerrilla group to the black market doctors?

Does that make his person property?

(b) Using National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] UKHL 1, do you think excised or

removed bodily materials can be "property"?

(c) If the bodily materials are property, who has a better right to them? You may presume that

Dr Dane is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.