Auric Bond was seeking a safe investment for $100 000 that he had inherited from his parents. He contacted Goldcomp Inc, a company that dealt in precious metals. Goldcomp presented a standard form contract to Auric. The relevant portion of that document said: Gold is one of the safest investments available, and Goldcomp makes every effort to ensure that your investment is protected as it grows. Goldcomp holds a large amount of gold bullion in its guarded vault. Once you have paid the purchase price, an appropriate percentage of that gold will be allocated to you, and you will receive a certificate verifying your ownership of that gold. You can, at any time, take physical delivery of your purchase by providing Goldcomp with seven days' notice. 

Auric agreed to those terms, paid $100 000 to Goldcomp, and received a certificate stating that he was the owner of a certain amount of gold. 

Goldcomp recently became bankrupt. Its debts exceed its assets by a 10:1 ratio. Furthermore, it was recently discovered that Goldcomp never actually separated its gold into separate bundles for Auric or its other customers. All of its gold sat in an undifferentiated mass in its vault. Auric has given seven days' notice under the agreement, but because of its bankruptcy, Goldcomp has not delivered any gold to him. In the circumstances, Auric can sue Goldcomp for breach of contract. However, if he does so, he will simply obtain a personal judgment and will have to share Goldcomp's meagre assets with the other creditors. He would be lucky to get $10 000 under that approach. Auric therefore wants to argue that he can take possession of $100 000 worth of gold on the basis that he already has property or ownership in it. Will that argument be successful? Explain your answer.