The Common Law Principle Of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet

"steward" is used to mean that no one can truly "own" the land, it can only be

| 21 |LO 4 |Basis for inherited property: community property vs common law | |Unchanged | 21 |

• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.

Property has always played an important role in the life of an individual, community and country. The practical significance of the property lies in the fact that it enables us at least the necessities and amenities of the routine life if not the means of comfort. The property rights give the successor a way to overcome the sufferings and to fight the battle of their lives.

also discussed the relevance of the rejection of universal and absolute ownership. He discussed the idea that the Crown had ‘absolute ownership of, legal possession of an exclusive power to confer title to, all land in the Murray Islands.’ So to was the idea considered that the doctrine of tenure was complete, such that every segment of land which was acquired by England was held ‘mediately or immediately of the King who is the Lord Paramount’. Brennan J. concluded that ‘the doctrine of tenure applies to every Crown grant of an interest in land, but not to rights and interests which do not owe their existence to a Crown grant’. Thus, it was accepted by the majority that the Crown in fact acquired a radical title - as opposed to an absolute title - upon the acquirement of any land, and that this radical title would be subject to native title rights in the occurrence that the appropriate native title rights had not been reasonably or formerly

Id. at cmt. a (emphasis added). Accordingly, a freehold estate possessed by a landlord (or perhaps even a possessory interest—in the case of a sublet) is a necessary condition to establish the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. To illustrate:

“[A]t common law, there is no contribution among joint tort feasors, but that right is now given by statute.” Norfolk & P.B.L.R. Co. v. Parker, 152 Va. 484, 505 (1929). Currently, under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-34, “[c]ontribution among wrongdoers may be enforced when the wrong results from negligence and involves no moral turpitude.” (emphases added). “The aforementioned code section gives a right of contribution only where the party damaged has a right of action against two or more parties for the same indivisible damage. In short, if the damaged party has a cause of action against only one of the parties responsible for the damage, that one cannot enforce contribution from the other.” Am. Tobacco Co. v. Transport Corp., 277 F. Supp. 457,

In 1979 under Thatcher 's reign, the conservative government published its housing bill promising with it the Right to buy. A popular demand at the time as people living in social houses aspired to finally own their home. At the time a blessing, however 30 years later we find that the bill promised the current generation housing at a discounted price. however, only at the expense of the next. The bill forbade local authorities from replacing the council houses sold in the right to buy system. Due to the nature of the right to buy properties, the houses sold were not empty nor was it available, many of the properties were already inhabited. Over the course of 30 years, over 2 million social houses were sold; as a result, there was a large demand for social housing which the local authorities could not meet. Subsequently due to heavily discounted prices of the houses, used to ensure that those vulnerable families are able to become home owners; not enough income was being generated in order to build a replacement home. Since local authorities could not replace them themselves, social landlords struggled to build enough to replace those sold through the right to buy. The bill also opened made way for private companies to abuse the bill and make profit out of properties previously owned by the local authority.

The official version of the law is the basis on which the law prides itself to be. It claims to be neutral, having no prejudice against race, sex, gender, or any other distinguishing characteristics. The law compares itself to a blindfolded woman as historically women who have been seen as virgins who are pure, uninfluenced, and have no biases. The official version of the law is bound by one rule and that is everyone is subjected to the law and will be treated equally under it. Stare Decisis, a well known term to legal scholars is used define how judges are bound by precedent which means they must treat all cases the same and thus leading to the basis of the official version which is predictable, unbiased law. My focus in this paper is to

Majority pointed to the critical difference between the 1996 and the 1902 Acts pointing to the differences between pawn or pledge and a chattel mortgage and the different property rights created by the two fundamentally different types of security. They go on to say that if pawn is given its accepted and long established legal meaning then the reasoning of the Court of Appeal is “necessarily flawed”. They go on to say that pawn and chattel mortgage are mutually exclusive

It is often conceptualized that property is the rights of 'ownership'. In common law property is divided

In essence, “leases” are created between landlords and tenants as contracts to grant exclusive possession of the land for a defined period of time, in exchange of rent from tenant. Leases give contractual interests to tenants, while at the same time creates proprietary interests in the land by granting exclusive possession, which elevates a tenancy into an “estate/interest in land”. It can therefore be understood and has been suggested by commentators that leases are of dual nature and should “be characterised as something of a hybrid”[1]: a hybrid of contract and estate in land. In the landmark case of Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust[2],

In the West London County Court proceeding were brought by Ghaidan. Judge Cowell granted a declaration that Godin-Mendoza did not succeed to the tenancy of the flat as the surviving spouse, but became entitled to an assured tenancy of the flat by succession as a member of the original tenant’s family.

Harmer v Jumbil [1921]: A landlord will only be LIABLE FOR BREACH OF COVENANT IF HE WAS AWARE OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE TENANT INTENDED TO USE THE LEASED LAND.

The Land Registration Act (LRA) 1925 has drawn much flak over the years with regards to one of its most important provisions on overriding interests (OI), which often goes unnoticed until it swoops up and takes priority over the rights of a future purchaser. These interests often come in the form of other occupiers in the property with an equitable interest and, like in the case of Boland , this leaves the lender in a tight spot when they find out about the existence of these interests only after they have initiate proceedings for possession against the defaulting borrowers. Due to the other occupier’s concealed nature on the property register, the lenders have regained their footing by applying the concept of overreaching and ….. The Law Commission, on the other hand, contemplated abolishing these interest altogether but did not go to that extent because it was neither feasible nor desirable Instead, they shrank their impact on land by reforming the operation and scope of the OI. With LRA 2002 sch 3 para 2, lenders now have more control over what may bite them. …. This essay will access…. with a focus on how the lending world have dealt with the implications of Boland…. The best way to access the impact of … would be to go through the pre – post blabla to show how the thing has balanced.