15. The Priority Triangle

2021 ◽  
pp. 553-578
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Basic Rule ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Land Registration ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter addresses the question of when C can have a defence to B’s pre-existing property right. It thus covers the basic principles that apply when answering the priority question. It examines how a court determines which of two competing property rights arose first. It also examines exceptions to the basic rule, acknowledged by s 28 of the Land Registration Act 2002 that B’s property right, where it arises before C’s property right, will take priority.

15. The Priority Triangle

Land Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Basic Rule ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter addresses the question of when C can have a defence to B’s pre-existing property right. It covers the basic principles that apply when answering the priority question. It examines how a court determines which of two competing property rights arose first. It also examines exceptions to the basic rule that B’s property right, where it arises before C’s property right, will take priority.

12. The priority triangle

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Basic Rule ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter addresses the question of when C can have a defence to B's pre-existing property right. It covers the basic principles that apply when answering the priority question. It examines how a court determines which of two competing property rights arose first. It also examines exceptions to the basic rule that B's property right, where it arises before C's property right, will take priority.

6. Equitable interests

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter explores the content of equitable interests in land, and considers how such rights differ from each of personal rights and legal estates and interests. Equitable interests in land are capable of being asserted against third parties. They have a power lacking in personal rights. The content and acquisition questions are answered differently depending on whether B claims a legal or equitable property right. It is noted that equitable interest in land depends on A's coming under a duty to B. Moreover, as observed, equitable property rights are conceptually different from legal property rights.

16. Priorities in Registered Land

2021 ◽  
pp. 579-618
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Priority Rules ◽  
Land Registration ◽  
General Law ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Personal Liability ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter explores the defences against pre-existing property rights that are available to a party who acquires for value and registers a right in registered land. The Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) offers a distinct set of priority rules for one category of transaction: a registrable disposition of a registered estate for valuable consideration. The chapter analyses the priority rules applicable to such transactions, including the effect of the entry of a land registry notice, the category of ‘overriding interests’ (property rights immune to a lack-of-registration defence), and limitations on the powers of a registered owner. The chapter concludes by examining the policy of the LRA 2002 to transactions that are tainted by fraud or wrongdoing that is not such as to invalidate the transaction. Such transactions may result, under the general law, in the creation of new direct rights which may, for example, impose personal liability on a registered party.

scholarly journals Unilateral Refusals to License in the U.S.

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The U.S

Most antitrust claims relating to intellectual property involve challengesto agreements, licensing practices or affirmative conduct involving the useor disposition of the intellectual property rights or the products theycover. But sometimes an antitrust claim centers on an intellectual propertyowner's refusal to use or license an intellectual property right, perhapscoupled with efforts to enforce the intellectual property right againstinfringers. The allegation may be that the intellectual property right isso essential to competition that it must be licensed across the board, orthat a refusal to license it to one particular party was discriminatory, orthat in context a refusal to license helped a monopolist to acquire ormaintain market power.Claims based on a unilateral refusal to license - the subject of thischapter - present important issues at the center of the tension betweenantitrust and intellectual property. The antitrust and intellectualproperty laws are not necessarily in conflict. For the most part they servecomplementary goals, though each must limit the scope of the other.Unilateral refusal to license cases, however, cut to the heart of theintellectual property owner's right to exclude others from practicing theintellectual property. As such, efforts to invoke antitrust law in thiscontext deserve special scrutiny.Section 2 reviews the basic principles relating to unilateral refusals tolicense intellectual property rights. Section 3 discusses in detail thevarious sets of circumstances in which antitrust plaintiffs argue forexceptions to those basic rules. Section 4 distinguishes unilateral fromconcerted and conditional refusals to deal.

6. Equitable Interests

Land Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource.This chapter explores the content of equitable interests in land, and considers how such rights differ from each of personal rights and legal estates and interests. Equitable interests in land are capable of being asserted against third parties. They have a power lacking in personal rights. The content and acquisition questions are answered differently depending on whether B claims a legal or equitable property right. It is noted that equitable interests in land depend on A’s coming under a duty to B. Moreover, as observed, equitable property rights are conceptually different from legal property rights.

6. Equitable Interests

2021 ◽  
pp. 172-193
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter explores the content of equitable interests in land, and considers how such rights differ from personal rights and also from legal estates and interests. Equitable interests in land are capable of being asserted against third parties and so differ from personal rights. The content and acquisition questions are answered differently, depending on whether B claims a legal or an equitable property right. It is also noted that, in general, equitable interests in land, unlike legal estates and interests, do not bind strangers who interfere with the land. Equitable interests also depend on A’s coming under a duty to B. It is therefore suggested that equitable property rights are conceptually different from legal property rights.

15. Evaluating the land registration act 2002

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Property Right ◽  
Land Registration ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter assesses the impact of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002). The Act principally affects the acquisition and defences questions. It considers whether the Act has achieved its aim of providing a comprehensive and accurate register, and also examines if such an aim is a worthwhile one. The effect of the Act depends on whether C's registration can be said to be a ‘mistake’; but that term is not defined in the Act, and so there is room for disagreement amongst judges and commentators as to how the crucial notion of ‘mistake’ should be interpreted. The Act also concentrates on the different question of whether B can assert a pre-existing legal or equitable property right against C. The Law Commission heralded the reforms made by the LRA 2002 as a ‘conveyancing revolution’. At the same time, further changes to conveyancing practice are warranted in order to tackle the perennial frustration experienced by potential homebuyers.

18. Reform of the Land Registration Act 2002

Land Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Property Right ◽  
Land Registration ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter assesses the impact of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) and looks at recent Law Commission proposals to reform the LRA 2002. The Act principally affects the acquisition and defences questions. It considers whether the Act has achieved its aim of providing a comprehensive and accurate register, and also examines if such an aim is a worthwhile one. The effect of the Act depends on whether C’s registration can be said to be a ‘mistake’; but that term is not defined in the Act, and so there is room for disagreement amongst judges and commentators as to how the crucial notion of ‘mistake’ should be interpreted. The Act also concentrates on the different question of whether B can assert a pre-existing legal or equitable property right against C. The chapter considers the detail of some of the Law Commission’s recent proposals to update the LRA 2002, and notes how those proposals are based on a more nuanced approach, which balances the need of a registered party against other policy concerns.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND TRANSLATIVE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DOCTRINE OF OWNERSHIP TRANSFER

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myroslava Hudyma ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Close Attention ◽  
Ownership Transfer ◽  
The Right ◽  
Qualitative Characteristics

Within the framework of the general doctrine of constitutive and translational acquisition of rights, the publication made an attempt to identify their suitability for describing the phenomenon of ownership transfer. The general characteristics of translational and constitutive acquisition of rights are analyzed, their differences are highlighted, and it is emphasized that the specified types can cover such legal situations as full transfer of the right (the right as a whole), and transfer of a part of powers (as components of the certain right). The paper underlines that the differences between the types of acquisition of rights are not so much quantitative (one jurisdiction or their complex is transferred), as qualitative characteristics and such issues are especially relevant in the spectrum of research on the transfer of ownership as a right that includes a triad of powers. Close attention is paid to the construction of constitutive acquisition of right, the possibility of use of which is extremely controversial, due to the overwhelming denial of the correctness of separation and alienation of a separate authority from ownership right, because the approval of the latter will lead to theoretical dissonance on the existence of incomplete (split ownership). It is emphasized that the application of the construction of the transfer of authority can take place in different shades of meaning and be combined with the right alienation, and without it. Therefore, the construction of right granting without alienation of the right is quite viable. Moreover, the transfer of one or even several powers of the owner is not only practically possible, but also necessary to establish limited property rights on the basis of full property right (ownership right). However, it is noted that in these cases, the acquirer will not receive the right of the alienator as a whole, but only certain legal possibilities of behavior in relation to a particular good. The legal capacity of the acquirer will not coincide with the legal capabilities of the alienator in content and scope, and therefore to talk about the transfer of ownership is incorrect, only a certain authority (powers) of the owner will be transferred, provided its (their) separation admissibility. The paper concludes that the specifics of property rights, which forms a triad of indivisible powers, determines the possibility of applying the construction «transfer of ownership» only to cases of translational acquisition of right, in which the acquirer receives a right identical to the right of the grantor both in content and volume.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document