Understanding Property: Differences Between National Provincial Bank Ltd. V Ainsworth

The meaning of Property

Question:

Differences between National Provincial Bank Ltd. V Ainsworth?

Professor Gray has his own point of view for the term ‘property[1]’. It can be discuss as per his view points in our essay. The term property is quite often used in the wrong sense due to its certain concepts that are very delicate and difficult to remember. Our motion with the term property is mostly meaningless and not reflective. Every individual has once had a false belief that property was an object of ownership. But in real, property is an object of relationship which an individual has with it. To claim a property is regarded as the degree of control an individual has over it. It should not be confused in this relationship of control as it would cause error. Property can be understood as the concentration of power[2] which is exercised by an individual in relation with a valued resource.

Professor Gray believed that property was considered as fraud and not theft he also further stated that property does not exist it is just an illusion. The concept of property was same as the concept of air; both were regarded as a vacant concept. For example, if we invite certain guest’s home for dinner, the guest cannot assume that they have any right over the property or they have the liability to walk away with the cutlery or the books of the host. The guests are not any kind of trespassers as they were invited by the host. Therefore, there is a cordial relation between the guest and the host. Both do their part and post dinner the guest leaves. Thus, the guest even for that brief time had any property in the house of the guest has a strain understanding. Throughout this dinner the relationship the guest had with the land cannot be described as ‘proprietary’ even the guest helped the host in any household[3] chores. All the right relating to one’s own land is personal, social and moral. As the guests were invited by the host, they were not considered as trespassers.

In this essay there has been a focus in bringing out the scope where the “English law” and the “common law jurisprudence” managed the concept of property. It can be seen that the land had various fluctuation which were not consistent among the three different perspectives. In the world of the common law, it has never been clear that if property understood as “empirical facts”, artificial defined by the rights or obligations that are bound to the objectives of the land[4]. Mostly, the three perspectives often overlap and communicate still it remains not clear regarding the concept of property. Therefore, the concept of ‘property’ moves back and forth among the behavior, the concept and the obligation[5] it has towards the property in the form of facts, rights and responsibility.

Property when considered as a fact is related with what happens on the land rather that what comes out from above. Property is recognized as the degree on the basis of which the claimant can assert de facto, and posses control over the land. In this context the property in relation to the fact is more than the rights of the property it does not arise from the words but from the possession that has been sustained. To own a property it does not mean that a person can have any form of physical connection with a dimension of land but also needs to have some kind of legal claim over it. In the case, Mabo V Queensland (No 2) the Australian “High Court” was forced to recognize what was not possible, that even after thousands of years of occupancy of a land the existing residents were considered as trespassers[6] on the land where their ancestors had lived.

The Concept of Property in English Law

Property has various rights attached to it. In relation to this concept the physical relation with the land gets separated and encourages the conceptual process. It is believed that the property has an existing right rather than the property being just a physical object. This can be supported by the English Law of the land. The term property has incorporeal rights. The doctrine of estates played an important role in the representation of the artificial proprietary relation between the tenant and the land. Every tenant only possessed or owned the estate in the land and not the land itself. It can be derived that the land is an object of the obligations and has had the wide spread over the English laws. In the case, National Provincial Bank Ltd. V Ainsworth, was stated by Lord Wilberforce[7] that a “right or an interest” can be entered into level of property or a right that affects the property. In the case, Prudential Assurance Co Ltd V London Residuary Body, the “House of Lords” had rejected[8] to overrule a 500 year old principle that concerned with the most time limit ascertained with the beginning of the lease.

Property is also concerned with responsibility. This concept indentifies and separates as well as identifies the various essential elements of utility. The overlapping nature of land may be of advantage in many ways, it encourages employment, occupancy, provides food for consumption, lands are also used for investment and so on. There has to a balance maintained in the elements of utility. However, if we encounter any adding or subtracting from the utilities that are enjoyed by the individual, it can be said that a kind of payment has taken place, under the English Law. From Tulk V Moxhay, this case onwards the “English Courts” had started to apply restrictions against the purchasers and both the covenant and the freeholder could honestly hold that they had some kind of control over the property. In the case, R V Thurrock Borough Council, ex parte Blue Circle Industries, it was laid down that the local authority[9] was prepared to give up to a tenant company a land in return of money. The Court of Appeal declined the disposal as it did not cover the fundamental right of the property.

So far it has been focused that there are three ways by which the common law jurisprudence has influence over the land. There are various challenges[10] that have been faced in these perspectives relating to property. Each perspective provides in its own way the importance it has with the property and also reminds us quality that is still attached to the core of the phenomenon. The term ‘property’ has a limited scope; it compromises of large areas and believes in three perspectives that are fats, rights and responsibility. Property gives out a powerful yet a false force. Kevin Gray, has set a standard for describing the term property, as an physical object that prevents the individuals who have not paid for the product to have any access over it. In this case it can be said that the non-payment[11] will not allow the individual to have any access over the property. With the help of such standards to measure the “propertiness” the plaintiff must be successful in claiming that the rights he posses on his property has been disturbed by another. Contrary to this, if the plaintiff in his actions did not show any form of control over the access of the property, thus in this case there can be no infringement.

Rights and Obligations of Property

In this essay there are certain normative aspects that have to be dealt with. The meaning of the term property can be seen in this case, Australia in Victoria Racing and Recreation Grounds Co. Ltd V Taylor, the High Court in this case said that, they found themselves confused in imparting decisions due to the difference in the concept[12] of the term property. I believe that Kevin Gray is mostly right in his propositions of the standards or principle he follows about “excludability”, which means any individual who does not pay for a particular product shall have no access to it. I can explain my answer as to why I have agreed to Kevin Grays perception, if room is already occupied by an individual before I enter that particular room it would not mean that I have no access to that room just because I entered later. Similarly, it doesn’t mean that the person who entered the room first has rights to restrict me from its use. Thus the same can be applied to the term “property”

Reference List:

Alford-Duguid, Dominic Adrian. Getting Properties In Mind. Diss. University of Toronto, 2016.

Beaudin, Réjean G. "Solutions to the Challenges of Traditional Retirement Home Models that Approach Ageing as Disease." (2013).

Cutler, Matthew J. "Seeing and believing: the emergent nature of extreme weather perceptions." Environmental Sociology 1.4 (2015): 293-303.

Keenan, Sarah. Subversive property: Law and the production of spaces of belonging. Routledge, 2014.

Kelly, Michael Butler. The invasion of things sacred: Church, property, and sacrilege in early modern England. Diss. University of Notre Dame, 2013

Molthan, ANDREW L., et al. "Multi-sensor examination of hail damage swaths for near real-time applications and assessment." J. Operational Meteor 1.13 (2013): 144-156.

Norwood, Graham, and Kim Tasso. Media Relations in Property. Taylor & Francis, 2014.

Osberg, Lars. Economic inequality in the United States. Routledge, 2015.

Schad, Jessica Dawn Ulrich. Migration, views on amenity-led development, and making community in rural recreation counties in the US. Diss. University of New Hampshire, 2014.

Sneller, Betsy. "Antagonistic contact and inverse affiliation: Appropriation of/TH/-fronting by White speakers in South Philadelphia." University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20.2 (2014): 19.

Watt, Laura Alice. The Paradox of Preservation: Wilderness and Working Landscapes at Point Reyes National Seashore. Univ of California Press, 2016.

Zale, Kellen. "Sharing property." (2015)

[1] Molthan, ANDREW L., et al. "Multi-sensor examination of hail damage swaths for near real-time applications and assessment." J. Operational Meteor 1.13 (2013): 144-156.

[2] Norwood, Graham, and Kim Tasso. Media Relations in Property. Taylor & Francis, 2014.

[3] Watt, Laura Alice. The Paradox of Preservation: Wilderness and Working Landscapes at Point Reyes National Seashore. Univ of California Press, 2016.

[4] Sneller, Betsy. "Antagonistic contact and inverse affiliation: Appropriation of/TH/-fronting by White speakers in South Philadelphia." University of Pennsylvania Worki

ng Papers in Linguistics 20.2 (2014): 19.

[5] Keenan, Sarah. Subversive property: Law and the production of spaces of belonging. Routledge, 2014.

[6] Osberg, Lars. Economic inequality in the United States. Routledge, 2015.

[7] Zale, Kellen. "Sharing property." (2015).

[8] Cutler, Matthew J. "Seeing and believing: the emergent nature of extreme weather perceptions." Environmental Sociology 1.4 (2015): 293-303.

[9] Schad, Jessica Dawn Ulrich. Migration, views on amenity-led development, and making community in rural recreation counties in the US. Diss. University of New Hampshire, 2014.

[10] Kelly, Michael Butler. The invasion of things sacred: Church, property, and sacrilege in early modern England. Diss. University of Notre Dame, 2013.

[11] Alford-Duguid, Dominic Adrian. Getting Properties In Mind. Diss. University of Toronto, 2016.

[12] Beaudin, Réjean G. "Solutions to the Challenges of Traditional Retirement Home Models that Approach Ageing as Disease." (2013).