Clog on the equity of redemption: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{a|security|{{image|Clogs|jpg|Clogs on the [[equity of redemption]] (obscured)}}}}Giving the lie to the old saw that civil law tradition favoured by our continental cousins isn’t clever enough to separate legal and beneficial interests comes this proof that a fundament of the law of equity has its origins in Netherlands. For, otherwise, they would be ''sneakers'' on the [[equity of redemption]], wouldn’t they. | ||
Giving the lie to the old saw that civil law tradition favoured by our continental cousins isn’t clever enough to separate legal and beneficial interests comes this proof that a fundament of the law of equity has its origins in Netherlands. For, otherwise, they would be ''sneakers'' on the [[equity of redemption]], | {{sa}} | ||
[[ | *[[Trust]] | ||
{{ | {{c|Trusts}} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:03, 16 October 2023
|
A word about credit risk mitigation
|
Giving the lie to the old saw that civil law tradition favoured by our continental cousins isn’t clever enough to separate legal and beneficial interests comes this proof that a fundament of the law of equity has its origins in Netherlands. For, otherwise, they would be sneakers on the equity of redemption, wouldn’t they.