4. Party Autonomy and Property Rights

Author(s):  
Robert Stevens
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Andreas Televantos

This chapter identifies and explores a core task of private law: to determine “third party effects” of transactions. We ask to what extent an A–B transaction may affect C, a party who enters into a subsequent transaction with A, or otherwise interferes with the right claimed by B. We show first that such third party effects are controlled not only by rules relating to legal property rights and equitable interests, but also by parts of the law of agency, of partnerships, and of tort. Secondly, whilst a range of doctrines thus share this function of controlling third party effects, it is important to distinguish between the precise legal form used by each doctrine. Thirdly, we argue that even when considering one particular form, such as that of a legal property right, third party effect is determined by the interaction of different types of rules, with the practical operation of one type of rule modified by the application of a different type. For this reason, attention must be paid to the interaction between the different forms used to govern third party effect. There is a question as to whether the law in this area is unduly complex, but we suggest that, so long as the range of forms tracks the diversity of ordinary transactions, private law usefully enhances party autonomy by offering parties these different means of casting their legal relations.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-191
Author(s):  
Zhengxin Huo

This article reviews the statutory reform of Chinese private international law from the perspective of property rights which concludes that notwithstanding the significant improvement, the new Private International Law Act of China are fraught with various defects. In the field of property, Article 37 and Article 38 are particularly problematic as the introduction of unlimited party autonomy into the choice-of-law rules for movables and res in transitu is theoretically indefensible and practically troublesome. Moreover, there are a number of defects or problems with Article 39 and Article 40 of the Act respectively. What’s more, the Act neglects some other important types of property that call for special treatment, such as cultural property, and assignment of debt. In the end, the article puts forward the corresponding suggestions for improvement.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Harris ◽  
Meina Cai ◽  
Ilia Murtazashvili ◽  
Jennifer Murtazashvili
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inggrit Fernandes

Batik artwork is one of the treasures of the nation's cultural heritage. Batik artwork is currently experiencing rapid growth. The amount of interest and market demand for this art resulted batik artwork became one of the commodities in the country and abroad. Thus, if the batik artwork is not protected then the future can be assured of a new conflict arises in the realm of intellectual property law. Act No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright has accommodated artwork batik as one of the creations that are protected by law. So that this work of art than as a cultural heritage also have economic value for its creator. Then how the legal protection of the batik artwork yaang not registered? Does this also can be protected? While in the registration of intellectual property rights is a necessity so that it has the force of law to the work produced


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document