scholarly journals The Sliding Scale between Usufruct and Ownership: The Example of Swedish Multi-Family Housing

Land ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 311
Author(s):  
Anna Granath Hansson ◽  
Peter Ekbäck ◽  
Jenny Paulsson
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
General Level ◽  
Multifamily Housing ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Sliding Scale ◽  
Family Housing ◽  
The Right

This paper aims to elucidate the sliding scale between usufruct and ownership by applying a property rights framework to three Swedish forms of tenure in multifamily housing. The framework deconstructs the bundles of rights of rental, tenant-ownership and ownership to highlight commonalities and differences connected to the right to use and exclude, the right to transfer and the right to the value. It is concluded that the three tenure forms have many traits in common but that there are distinct differences in some areas, most notably in connection to the right to the value. The property rights framework applied in the study may be applicable also on a general level as a method to analyze and compare tenures of different types in different countries. Further, ways to improve the framework and cover more facets of outcomes of property rights patterns are suggested.

Third Party Effects in Private Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 107-136
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Andreas Televantos
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
Practical Operation ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

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.

The Arabic Origins of English and Indo-European “Definite Articles”: A Radical Linguistic Theory Approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Zaidan Ali Jassem
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Method ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
General Level ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Tree Model ◽  
Linguistic Change ◽  
European Languages ◽  
The Family ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Definite Articles

This paper traces the Arabic origins or cognates of the “definite articles” in English and Indo-European languages from a radical linguistic (or lexical root) theory perspective. The data comprises the definite articles in English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian, Latin, Greek, Macedonian, Russian, Polish, Sanskrit, Hindi, Bengali, Persian, and Arabic. The results clearly indicate that five different types of such articles emerged in the data, all of which have true Arabic cognates with the same or similar forms and meanings, whose differences are due to natural and plausible causes and different routes of linguistic change, especially lexical, semantic, or morphological shift. Therefore, the results support the adequacy of the radical linguistic theory according to which, unlike the Family Tree Model or Comparative Method, Arabic, English, German, French, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit not only belong to the same language family, renamed Eurabian or Urban family, but also are dialects of the same language, with Arabic being their origin all because only it shares the whole cognates with them all and because it has a huge phonetic, morphological, grammatical, and lexical variety. They also manifest fundamental flaws and grave drawbacks which plague English and Indo-European lexicography for ignoring Arabic as an ultimate ancestor and progenitor not only in the treatment of the topic at hand but in all others in general. On a more general level, they also show that there is a radical language from which all human languages stemmed and which has been preserved almost intact in Arabic, thus being the most conservative and productive language

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.

Property Rights: A Re-Examination

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. E Penner
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
Natural Right ◽  
Kantian Theory ◽  
Bundle Of Rights ◽  
Vexed Question ◽  
The Right ◽  
Jural Relations

Ranging over a host of issues, Property Rights: A Re-Examination pinpoints and addresses a number of theoretical problems at the heart of property theory. Part 1 reconsiders and refutes the bundle of rights picture of property and the related nominalist theories of property, showing that ownership reflects a tripartite structure of title, the right to immediate, exclusive, possession, and the power to licence what would otherwise be a trespass, and to transfer ownership. Part 2 explores in detail the Hohfeldian theory of jural relations, in particular liberties and powers and Hohfeld’s concept of ‘multital’ jural relations, and shows that this theory fails to illuminate the nature of property rights, and indeed obscures much that it is vital to understand about them. Part 3 considers the form and justification of property rights, beginning with the relation an owner’s liberty to use her property and her ‘right to exclude’, with particular reference to the tort of nuisance. Next up for consideration is the Kantian theory of property rights, the deficiencies of which lead us to understand that the only natural right to things is a form of use- or usufructory-right. Part 3 concludes by addressing the ever-vexed question of property rights in land.

Economies with complex property rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-44
Author(s):  
Ivan Balbuzanov ◽  
Maciej H. Kotowski
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Solution Concept ◽  
Object Allocation ◽  
Top Trading Cycles ◽  
The Right ◽  
Shared Ownership

We discuss the exclusion core, a solution concept for object-allocation and object-exchange problems. The exclusion core is based on the right of exclusion and is especially useful for the analysis of economies with complicated property arrangements, such as those with shared ownership. The exclusion core coincides with the (strong) core in classic settings, and is closely related to the celebrated Top Trading Cycles algorithm.

Spinoza über Tiere

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik Perler
Keyword(s):  
Human Beings ◽  
Privileged Status ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Right

Abstract:According to Spinoza, there is no categorical distinction between human and non-human animals: they all belong to the same nature and all consist of bodies with corresponding ideas. This thesis gives rise to two problems. How is it possible to distinguish different types of animals, in particular nonrational and rational ones, if all of them have the same metaphysical structure? And why does Spinoza nevertheless claim that human beings have a privileged status that gives them the right to use non-rational animals? This paper examines these two problems, arguing that the solution to both of them lies in Spinoza’s all-embracing naturalism.

scholarly journals What Constitutions Can Do (but Courts Sometimes Don’t): Property, Speech, and the Influence of Constitutional Norms on Private Law

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Gerstenberg
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Social Democracy ◽  
Recent Attempt ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The Right ◽  
Higher Law

In this paper I want to address, against the background of the ECtHR’s recent attempt to resolve the clash between property rights and the right to freedom of expression in its decision in Appleby v. UK, two questions, both of which I take to be related to the overarching theme of “social democracy”. First, there is the problem of the influence of “higher law”-of human rights norms and constitutional norms-on private law norms; second, the question of the role of adjudication in “constitutionalizing” private law, in other words, the question of the “judicial cognizability” of constitutional norms within private law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document