82,976
edits
Custody model: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|cass|}}How one goes about holding assets in [[safekeeping]] differs according to your [[jurisdiction]] and yea, even the legal tradition from which your basic system of law sprang. | {{a|cass|}}How one goes about holding assets in [[safekeeping]] differs according to your [[jurisdiction]] and yea, even the legal tradition from which your basic system of law sprang. | ||
On the one hand, there are those (er, ... ''us'') crazy Commonwealth folk, | On the one hand, there are those (er, ... ''us'') crazy Commonwealth folk, all still to some degree tethered to the emotional apron strings of mother {{tag|England}}<ref>Yes, {{tag|America}}, that includes you, however much you might deny it. ''And'' you, {{tag|Australia}}.</ref> with their [[common law]] and its bonkers notions of [[precedent]], the [[Courts of chancery|separation of legal and beneficial interests]] | ||
On the other, those tiresomely sensible continentals with their romanesque belief in order, straight roads, principled-based rule-making and the primacy of legislation that hasn’t just been made up on the hoof by some guy in a horse-hair wig. Curiously they have arrived at very different models of custody of freely transferable securities. | |||
{{UK custody model}} | {{UK custody model}} | ||
| Line 7: | Line 9: | ||
{{Continental custody model}} | {{Continental custody model}} | ||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Courts of chancery]] | *[[Courts of chancery]] | ||
*[[Doctrine of precedent]] | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||