Common lawyers are notoriously suspicious of legal theory. This is exemplified by the dearth of theoretical content in Australian corporate law debate. If the first sin of legal theory is “to presume that it can offer a blueprint for actual decision-making and be a substitute for judicial and lawyerly wisdom”, then surely it is an equal transgression to profess that judicial and lawyerly wisdom can for long elude criticism without a sound theoretical basis. Reasoning by analogy is commonplace. This is as true in legal reasoning as in any other discipline. Indeed, it has been suggested that in the Australian legal context analogical reasoning is the very same “judicial and lawyerly wisdom” referred to above. In order to determine whether there is a true analogy, a number of legal scholars have suggested that a variety of potential known source analogues should be carefully analysed for their potential relevance to a less familiar target analogue lest an inapt analogy should lead one into error. The modern trading company is widely regarded as an apt source analogue for resolving jurisprudential issues involving incorporated associations and societies. However the basis upon which this assertion is made has never been adequately elucidated. This thesis tests the hypothesis that the modern trading company is the most apt source analogue for developing a jurisprudence of incorporated associations and societies. This is achieved using a theoretical approach drawn from corporate realist theory that is informed by an epidemiological investigation of incorporated sporting associations and societies in Australia and New Zealand.