Chattels Puns

Hi UKPF!
I don't know if this is in this sub's wheelhouse but I'm looking for some advice if anyone has good or bad experiences in my situation.

I am the executor for my Aunt's estate. So far it's pretty straight forward, I've assessed all assets and liabilities and completed application for grant of probate with my solicitor filing the grant request on my behalf.

During asset assessment: I contacted an auction house to assess the value of my Aunt's possessions that were not demonstrable (i.e. had known value like investments). She had some paintings, furniture, china silver gold jewelry, that type of thing. Some of these are quite valuable (paintings by a reasonably famous UK artist worth e.g. GBP50,000) also some jewelry worth approx. GBP10,000 etc. But also there's just like... beds and tables and chairs, nothing that special but probably worth a few thousand all in all, but of a very different type.

In my mind: the relatively valuable stuff would all go to an auction house (I asked the one that did the valuation about what to do and they have been maddeningly unhelpful, just saying "information about auctions is on our website") but I can't sell e.g. a random coffee table or a reclining bed at a fine art auction house can I?!

So I've been searching for what to do in this situation and google is awash with bot written articles about estate management warning me NOT TO SELL BEFORE YOU HAVE GRANT OF PROBATE, great I get it, I'm doing that, but I can't find any information about how to actually turn all this stuff into liquid money so I can then divest the assets.

I also live abroad so am doing all this remotely which makes it harder.

My questions:
- Is my hunch about auction houses for valuable stuff actually right? Is that how you sell high end things from an Estate?

- If so what's the line in the ground for what gets auctioned and what is not in that league?

- Do gold and jewels go to auction houses to or is that one of those.. "we buy gold" places?

- How do you sell every day stuff? Do you bother? Are there services that will just come and take everything sell it for you and take a cut (that aren't scammy?)

Additional notes:
- My aunt's estate is not valued at greater than the nil band IHT allowance taking into account the transferred allowance of her late husband (e.g. it is less than GBP650,000)

- I am one of two main beneficiaries of the estate.

Right now I'm thinking of flying home, sitting in my Aunts apart

Like if chattel means "a personal possession/property" than why don't we use it to describe slavery in say the Congo or Haiti too? It seems that slaves in those places were seen as property just the same as South Carolina, right?

Its not terribly important, but i'm just curious as to why this specific usage.

Hi there, thank you for your time.

I have purchased a home in Ontario and our agent has just notified us that the Seller (also the Selling agent) has fallen ill and might not be able to clear all their things by closing. They are proposing that they can clear the house, backyard, and storage bin from the driveway but would like to leave a garage full(?) of things for a few days and will come back to get them.

After discussing with our agent and lawyer we are leaning towards withholding 5k in trust for 5-7 days until all items are picked up. If not picked up , 5k will go to us to use to remove the items. We would like to act in good faith and take into consideration that they are very ill. Should we also be seeking out compensation for storage/inconvenience? Lawyer is suggesting $500-1000 as reasonable to ask for.

Will include that storage will be at their own risk and we assume no responsibility (theft, damage etc). Also mentioned liability for anyone coming to help move the items (injury occurs on property?)

Seller isn't closing until Jan 14 on their new home so not sure if they are just trying to get some cheap storage out of us but we want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Any advice is greatly appreciated.

I guess my main two questions are:

1. Is there anything we're not thinking of here?
2. Should we ask for compensation?

The Five Civilized Tribes adopted and practiced chattel slavery of blacks in the 18th century. When they were forcibly removed from their homelands in the Trail of Tears, they took their slaves with them to their new reservations. Slavery in the tribes was only abolished at the end of the Civil War as a demand of the victorious Union government.

This begs the question; what happened to the freedmen in these societies? What similarities and differences are there between the experiences of Indian freedmen and the experiences of African Americans, from the period immediately after emancipation up to today?

Lastly, my understanding of post-slavery African American history loosely splits the period into four eras: Reconstruction, Jim Crow, Civil Rights, and Post-Civil Rights. How closely (or not) does the history of Indian freedmen movements follow that of African American movements?

https://gerontology.wikia.org/wiki/Adelina_Domingues

My most downvoted comments are in r/antiwork arguing that just because you need to work to afford food, rent, etc,, that does no make free market labor agreements akin to 19th century chattel slavery. Slaves could not choose who they worked for, where they worked, or what work they did. They could legally be beaten or even killed by their masters. They just want to believe they are victims because they don't have marketable skills. Their world view, as is the case of most progressives, is driven by "malicious envy" as scientific studies have shown. Follow the science here.

After slavery ended in the US, the Southern planter oligarchy found new ways to keep African-Americans in subjection (along with poor whites, to some extent), such as sharecropping and prison labor systems. Why didn't they just do this sooner, and avoid the Civil War altogether?

The cotton gin (pat. 1794) made cotton cultivation enormously profitable; why didn't plantation owners use some of those profits to fund a transition from slavery to some kind of nominally free wage system or peonage, instead of doubling down on slavery? They could have ended slavery while still maintaining other social and legal restrictions, such as denying the vote.

This subject is almost not discussed in any high-school class in Romania. We learned that serfdom/slavery was emancipated in the mid 19th century. Some of my questions questions (besides the ones in the title) are:

• was the slave trade something big in Europe? Like with trade routes and cities build around such types of markets? Or was the local serfdom generally enough?

• how much were the Ottomans implicated in trading slaves?

• were gypsies the main people that could be enslaved or was it more "inclusive"?

• what about certain rights that a slave had?

I realize that answers might greatly depend on the time and place in Europe, but any answer describing the conditions of the slave trade would be interesting.

Also, I'd greatly appreciate some books on the subject, if available.