A tree can't give consent, ergo it can't be on the receiving end of a contract. That the public plays along has more to do with novelty and tradition than with

A tree can't give consent, ergo it can't be on the receiving end of a contract. That the public plays along has more to do with novelty and tradition than with a serious legal precedent. Saying that the tree de facto owns itself despite the lack of legal underpinning is like saying Emperor Norton was de facto the emperor of the United States because people accepted his fake money as legal tender and acknowledged his claims. Consider if Emperor Norton would have engaged in an armed conflict with the US government, for example. It'd be pretty obvious that he would be treated as an American citizen, not as a foreign head of state. Likewise if the Tree That Owns Itself's supposed legal status were ever at odds with the well-being of humans (to a degree that dwarfs its cultural value), it's pretty obvious who's side the courts would be on. At best, the tree could be treated as a corporation with the municipal government or the public acting on its behalf.