scholarly journals The Joint Ownership and the Prediction of the Right of First Refusal in Some Laws and Judicial Practices in Albania

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Memini
Keyword(s):  
Joint Ownership ◽  
Right Of First Refusal ◽  
The Right

ON CONSTRUCT OF THE RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION IN RESPECT OF PARTICIPATORY INTEREST (SHARES)

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 94-219
Author(s):  
I.S. CHUPRUNOV
Keyword(s):  
General Rule ◽  
Constitutive Theory ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Public Corporation ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
Right Of First Refusal ◽  
The Right

The paper provides analysis of the legal nature and the mechanism for exercise of the right of pre-emption (right of first refusal) in respect of execution of a contract taking as an example of right of first refusal to purchase a stake in a non-public corporation, and also examines the boundaries of parties’ autonomy and freedom of contract in this area. The author comes to the conclusion that the key elements of the construction of the right of pre-emption are the transformation powers that belong to the right holder. The author also demonstrates that, notwithstanding their dominance in Russian law, the views, which suggest that exercise of the right of pre-emption leads to “transfer of rights and obligations of a purchaser” (the translative theory), should be rejected. These views must be replaced with the constitutive theory, according to which exercise of the right of pre-emption results in a new contract between the right holder and the seller (as a general rule, on the same terms that were agreed between the seller and the purchaser).

scholarly journals The right to dispose of an item of property acquired in marriage

SEEU Review ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-93
Author(s):  
Emine Zendeli
Keyword(s):  
Republic Of Macedonia ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Marital Property ◽  
Joint Ownership ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Subjects ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Joint Property

Abstract This research article analyzes the right of disposal of marital property in relation to the undertaking of those legal actions that imply the highest authorizations that legal subjects can have over things. Having in consideration the fact that according to the legislation in the Republic of Macedonia, marital property is joint as are the authorizations of spouses over their joint items, it is important to determine the extent of the disposal, i.e. who disposes of the items of the joint property and to what extent. Referring to the normative framework, which regulates disposal relations of spouses, the article emphasizes the concept and importance of the authorization of disposal of things (alienation or assignment of things from joint ownership), through legal activities (sale, donation, exchange, etc.). In this context, the article tends to draw a divisive line between the administration with the joint item, referring to continuative actions and measures and the disposal of the thing, which is not continuative but, due to legal consequences it causes, has great importance in practice, and as a result, enjoys greater attention in legislators in terms of its limitation compared to the acts of administration with joint items in marriage.

scholarly journals Efectele partajului în noul Cod civil român: o (r)evoluție?

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 415-455
Author(s):  
Dragoș Isache ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Needs ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Theoretical Level ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Economic Level ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Practical Reality ◽  
Joint Ownership ◽  
The Right ◽  
Made In

Joint possession and settlement needed revival in 2011, yet the Legislator did not do much about it. It took from jurisprudence the regulations regarding joint possession (in the broad sense) and simply built a legal regime that in no way can satisfy the economic and social needs of joint holders. And the possibility to enter a management agreement remains in a very theoretical level that is far from practical reality, where such an agreement between joint owners does not exist. Settlement – the place where joint owners end their joint possession – was the second item that required modifications. In 1864, the Legislator took the declarative effect of settlement from French law without an analysis of its consequences on the economic level. Families were protected, but third parties, holders of real rights on the joint goods were sacrificed. This made settlement unattractive and unwanted. In 2011 the Legislator correctly identified the problem and offered the solution – that had been adopted by the French legislator since 2006, even under the rule of the declarative effect – a real subrogation with a particular title:  resettlement of the guarantee on the assigned goods. This is sufficient for the rights of guaranteed creditors to be maintained in all cases. With this, the right of each joint owner to fully and efficiently use his joint ownership right was insured. Was another change in this area needed? Apparently not. Nevertheless the Legislator unexpectedly decided in 2011 to renounce the fiction of the declarative effect. What did it replace it with? The translative effect of Roman law? No! It imagined a new effect of settlement: the constitutive effect. The shock of the change was mainly felt psychologically. At that time, the fiction of the declarative effect corresponded to a psychological perception according to which the heir held the goods directly from the decreased, perception that was well grounded after more than 140 years of existence. Just as the fiction of the declarative effect – in fact a rule born out of conjunction –generated numerous debates over centuries, the new constitutive effect of settlement was had to accept in notary practice. The cause? The fear that the new consequences of the constitutive effect will conflict with the imperative rules of the community of goods in the case of settlement parties who were  married on the settlement date. Indeed, any community matrimony regime is able to absorb in the settlement estate any goods purchased or obtained with onerous title by any of the spouses. But, the joint ownership right of settlement was that of an own goods. Moreover, the whole settlement was disputing own rights of the married settlement party. The doctrine limited itself to announcing the introduction of the constitutive effect without building a detailed analysis of its effects on the matrimony regimens. On our part, we suggested, at first an exhaustive analysis of the consequences of the translative and declarative effect of settlement. The purpose was to identify a ‛natural’ legal side of settlement that is its constants. Then we proved that the constitutive effect should be unitarily interpreted and applied. First of all, settlement produces a replacing effect. The share is replaced with an exclusive ownership right. It is natural that the exclusive ownership right obtained by each settlement party has the legal nature of the share it replaces. In the marital community field, this is an own goods of the married settlement party. Then, in case of settlement with allowance – that is expected to generate even more controversies – we have shown that is division does not degenerate settlement in two legal acts: settlement and sale. The settlement party who paid the allowance does not purchase anything; the settlement party receiving the allowance does not sell anything. The Legislators does not authorize such an idea, especially now that we are on the realm of the constitutive effect, where the idea of an exchange between settlement parties is excluded. The constitutive effect of settlement with allowance should be unitarily applied. For the married settlement party, the payment of the allowance represents an obligation to give that has the legal nature of an own obligation. Only its execution is carried out by using common funds of the spouses. And the increase acquiring of the goods is not a purchase in itself as it is made in the same spirit of the replacement effect of the share.

14. Estate Contracts, Options to Purchase, and Rights of Pre-Emption

2020 ◽  
pp. 446-461
Author(s):  
Emma Lees
Keyword(s):  
Precise Nature ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Generic Term ◽  
Right Of First Refusal ◽  
The Right ◽  
Conceptual Difficulties

This chapter addresses estate contracts, options to purchase, and rights of pre-emption. ‘Estate contracts’ is a generic term given to contracts relating to the intended transfer of estates in land, i.e. the freehold and leasehold estate. The consequence of an estate contract varies depending upon the kind of interest which it is intended will be created and the precise nature of the agreement reached between the parties. This can lead to some conceptual difficulties. Meanwhile, options to purchase and rights of pre-emption are two kinds of estate contract. Both involve an agreement between a freehold or leasehold proprietor and a potential purchaser in relation to that estate. An option to purchase entitles its holder to demand that the proprietor sell that estate to them, usually within a defined time period, for a pre-determined or determinable price. The right of pre-emption is, in effect, a right of first refusal. It does not allow its holder to force the proprietor of the estate in land to sell, but means that if that person does decide to sell, it must first be offered to the holder of the pre-emption right.

On the Right-of-First-Refusal

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sushil Bikhchandani ◽  
Steven A. Lippman ◽  
Reade Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Right Of First Refusal ◽  
The Right

Order 636-the right of first refusal

Natural Gas ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 22-24
Author(s):  
Richard G. Smead
Keyword(s):  
Right Of First Refusal ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals Right of apartment/condominium owners on the land on which the building is located in the context of conversion of the right of use into the right of ownership on the construction land

2021 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-111
Author(s):  
Radenka Cvetić
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Special Form ◽  
World War ◽  
Construction Land ◽  
Modern Age ◽  
The World ◽  
Specific Object ◽  
Joint Ownership ◽  
The Right

Initially the paper recalls that the apartment/condominium ownership is a complex legal construct, which, as a special form of ownership, is the legal institute of modern age. Thereupon, the reasons underlying its legal recognition and widespread use have been indicated, taking into account its deviations from the general ownership regime. Complexity of the apartment/condominium ownership stems from its specific object. Namely, three components of this legal construct: the right on the separate unite of the building (which could be in the the exclusive ownership, co-ownership or in joint ownership), the right on the joint parts of the building (in joint ownership of apartment owners), and the right on the land on which the building is located (in co-ownership of apartment owners), should be normatively shaped and systematically coordinated. Special attention has been paid to the right on the land, from the viewpoint of its peculiarity during the development of a legal system in Serbia after the World War II. The process of conversion, i.e. transformation of the right of use into the right of ownership in Serbia has begun in 2009 by entering into force of the still applicable Planning and Building Act. Evolution of the regulation of the rights of apartment/condominium owners on the land on which the building was erected (including the land which serves for its regular use), from 2009 to 2020, has been examined in detail in the light of its adequacy and capacity to contribute to the (re)establishing of the legal unity of the immovable property, as well as to the prevention of contentious situations.

Repeated Auctions with the Right of First Refusal

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hayley H Chouinard ◽  
Jonathan K Yoder
Keyword(s):  
Right Of First Refusal ◽  
The Right
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document