PROPERTY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Property and Legal Framework

Property Possession and Legal Framework

Possession

The concept of possession developed from a legal system whose main concern was to avoid civil disorder. The general principle is that a person in possession of the land or goods, even when an offender is allowed to act against anyone who interferes possession unless the person can demonstrate involvement of the right superior to do so.

In the UK, act of property in 1977 significantly changed the law regarding wrongful interference with goods and abolished some remedies and doctrines of long standing. Being the possession of a factual situation that generates the image of a right, it can only fall on tangible assets, leaving the possession of things incorporeal legal effect other than those arising from the ownership of tangible assets, because of the need existence of a state of fact for possession takes effect (Berges, 2004, 26).

A clear example of this would be the right mortgage, which despite being a absolute right is not possible existence of a state of affairs that resembles the right of mortgage, which is why the right mortgage is not subject to possession, then it follows that is a real right, but it is an intangible thing, which is outside the scope of possession (Alvis, 2007, 74).

Field of Possession

Real Rights are the only susceptible of possession, because the rights of credit and the state are excluded from the scope of actual possession, even when this institution are similar, since they involve factual situations which are images of a situation of law and equally enjoy legal protection.

In the regime of property, possession is the state of affairs resulting from a person who believes he owner of a thing movable or real estate behaves in public ownership. This is usually the case of people who bought a much without knowing that the person from whom they are not ownership. This is still the case in the person of good faith that the title was declared void due to a procedural irregularity (will be canceled). These people are of legal owners (Bender, 2004, 85).

Legal Points Raised

Legal points raised in the case were the claim for possession can be brought against a demoted tenant by the Pinnock.

Property Rights and Contractual Rights

A separate distinction is obvious where rights granted are insufficiently critical part to give the non-owner a definable interest right in the thing. The clearest example of these lines is allowed. Even if permits can be created by a binding contract, they do not cause the interests of industrial property.

In the case we can see that the house is owned by Mr. Frisby and premises in which case occurred belong to him. There was no need for an independent determination. If the property comprises of occupant's home than obligation would be considered in proportions. The claim can be defended by showing the home premises of each (Bender, 2004, 85).

Lord Hope noted that, in Pinnock, the Supreme Court held that article 8 requires courts asked to make possession orders ...