ABSTRACT
The advent of cryptoassets has ignited a fervent debate within legal scholarship regarding their classification within the common law’s traditional classification of personal property into things in possession and things in action. Specifically, it has energised calls for the creation of a novel tertium quid or third thing category. This chapter argues that the categories of ‘things in possession’ and ‘things in action’ are conceptually exhaustive and that a category of ‘third things’ would not cultivate a better understanding of the law of personal property. We do so from the perspective of Hong Kong law, which has flirted with ‘third things’ on at least three occasions, although our analysis is applicable across all common law jurisdictions. All three experiences – in relation to textile quotas, patents, and cryptoassets – in Hong Kong demonstrate that the ‘third thing’ debate is sterile and more likely to mislead than to elucidate.
Leung, Samuel Yee Ching and Low, Kelvin FK, Three Views of Third Things from Hong Kong (July 16, 2026) in Ying Khai Liew and Kelvin FK Low (eds), Asia-Pacific Property Law, Volume 1: Intangibles in Context (Hart Publishing, forthcoming).
Leave a Reply