The ‘bundle of sticks’ metaphor has been utilised for years as a common way to explain the complexities of property ownership in land law. This metaphorical concept was first introduced by Hohfeld, and developed further by numerous realists. In this essay I will describe the advantages and disadvantages of the metaphor as an intellectual construct and academic device and moreover, I will emphasize the metaphor’s deficiencies.
Despite acknowledging that Hohfeld did not originally create the metaphor or even use the term ‘bundle of sticks,’ his conceptual analysis of property rights in terms of legal relations led to the development of the ideas that property is made up of not things, but instead composed of legal relationships. It equally
…show more content…
Moreover, by using the metaphorical bundle to explain that aspect of property law teaches the individual of the importance of precision; meaning that one must recognise the subtle distinctions between interests that may perform essentially the same social function. In a more fundamental sense, the bundle of sticks metaphor also encourages conceptual thinking regarding the nature of property. It aids the individual in understanding that property is not a monolith but rather it encompasses an array of complex and contextual relationships. Once the following has been comprehended, the person can then become familiarised with applying that principle to the microcosm of estates. Hence, the same idea can similarly be transferred to the macrocosm of property law in general. The metaphor thus helps a person understand that what legal academics imply by the use of the term "property" differs substantially from the definition used in the non-legal sense. As this knowledge is essential in a world in which wealth is increasingly measured in sophisticated, intangible financial arrangements, the bundle of sticks metaphor plays a vital role in the training of aspiring
This causes a need to incorporatefor flexible and modern laws which encourage consumers and producers to “conveniently … raise finance …on the security of such property”[2] which encourage investment which in turn leads to the creation of wealth.
However, for technical purposes, some people prefer to distinguish real estate, referring to the land and fixtures themselves, from the real property, referring to ownership rights over real
The concept of property has long been one of the most crucial aspects for the U.S. citizens, as it is a major part of the Constitutional, and, therefore, human rights. Although the perception and understanding of “property” have been considerably changed, especially in terms of political and philosophical vision, it still has a particular meaning for the Americans. In general, the idea of property is the question of the political thought and conceptualized thinking common for the United States. In most cases, its transformations are connected to the introduction of capitalism and related governmental decision in politics. Therefore, as any other topic, the value of property has undergone harsh debates. In particular, such important figures as James Fenimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman have developed a fundamental scope of analyses with regard to the property rights in America.
Property: The right to claim and hold property; When it has been laboured for, one encloses it for greater individual profit the profit of the community of Man, it has been laboured for – Natural means of ownership one encloses it – The process of holding legal “deed” for greater individual profit – to build investment equity and avoid poverty of waste the profit of the community of Man – Moral commitment to Human Development (Locke: 1689).
When people decided to gather, communicate, and cooperate to make their livings around beasts, they also had to decide the ownerships of trophies. That was the time when the idea “property” was invented. Many wise men in the past, while thinking about a better format for people living together, argued meanings of property to people. British philosopher John Locke in his work Second Treatise of Government separates property as public goods shared by all humans and necessities for living created via labor. The value of property has changed over time, when later French philosopher Voltaire in his novel Candide, or Optimism expresses that property becomes for what people in a world where Candide lives keep fighting: land, gold, and even ownerships of women. Necessities and public goods becomes luxuries. Voltaire’s work shows this trend and it can explained by the worry about the risk of losing current living standard in the future when easily accessible things are no more available to everyone. In fact, Candide also reflects scarcity of property, a nature which Locke never mentioned. Thus Candide is a strong critique to Second Treatise of Government for the nature of property when Voltaire demonstrated scarcity in material and philosophical ways in Candide.
2. What do they consider the relationship between property and
He explains property rights, their practical need in our society, and the Biblical and ethical implications. Stapleford places great emphasis on the blend of ethics and economics
Nils Christie educates society on the concept of viewing conflicts as property and the ways in which this has impacted individuals and the legal system. It is the position of this essay that one can agree with Christie in the perception that conflicts can be viewed as property. Christie’s view as necessary or essential is debatable and will be further explored throughout the essay. Through the example of laws pertaining
“Lay back against the cushions and endeavoured rapidly to evolve some mean to putting an end the dual ownership” (Munro, 1).
In Lewisham Borough Council v Roberts[10], a case concerning delegation of power of requisition, Lord Denning affirmed that the Council ”cannot grant a lease or create any legal interest in the land…because it has itself no estate in the land out of which to carve any interest.” More recently, Neuberger J. in Re Friends Provident Life Office[11] reassured “a lease involves not only a contract, but also an estate in land”[12]. Therefore, the traditional concepts are long-standing principle and the possibility of leases existing merely in contractual nature and granting “tenant” merely contractual rights are denied by courts.
All the three philosophers, whose work I am going to scrutinize on, have very specific, yet in most cases common views on property. First of all, let me define what the term property means. Property, as I see it, is an object of legal rights that is possessed by an individual or a group of individuals who are directly responsible for this it.
The purpose of the paper research is to identify the world of property law that remains confusing to quite a number of people regarding personal and real property. Due to this confusion, a number of disputes arise when parties fail to reach an agreement especially when the seller includes the item in question as part of the sale of the realty and the buyer has a different view. This research will identify five examples of fixtures and real property in my house that will be enlightening especially pertaining the two gray areas. The research will also look at the determination made by commercial law pertaining to the evaluation of real property and fixtures and the exceptions when applying such tests. In the research, it will highlight the question of figuring out what fixtures are and the significant importance or raise this question with regards to the increase in the number of disputes associated with property law in case the value of the personal property exceeds the real property value. Finally, the research will identify different scenarios that may give rise to disputes regarding personal property and fixtures and how these fixtures are identified using different tests conducted by the property law courts in order to come to a consensus.
Lord Diplock once observed that Britain has become a ‘property owning, particularly a real mortgage to a building society owning, democracy’. A mortgage in relation to Lindley MR in Santley v Wilde , “is a transaction under which land or chattels are given as security for the payment of a debt or the discharge of some other obligations”. Lord Justice Munby stated that it means a charge on property to secure the repayment by a debtor to his creditor of monies lent. It is also a loan for a property that ought to be paid inside of a predefined timeframe i.e., it involves a transfer of a legal interest for the borrowers land (mortgagor) to the lender (mortgagee) with the procurement that the lenders interest terminates then loan and interest are reimbursed. The mortgage transaction was described by Maitland as “one long suppressio veri and suggestion falsi”.
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.
E. M. Forster expresses his personal struggles with owning property in his essay titled “My Wood”. Through the fame and fortune presented to him after his most prominent novel, A Passage of India was published, he had the opportunity to expand his horizons and purchase land. Often times, countless individuals believe owning land and experiencing economic growth in a personal matter may make someone feel enlightened or perhaps powerful. However, for Forster, the experience only brought upon feelings of misery and self-condemnation. E.M. Forster’s presents his central question in the first paragraph when he asks, “What is the effect of property on the character?” (246). Forster refers to the contradictory nature one feels with owning