Clog on the equity of redemption: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|security|{{image|Clogs|jpg|Clogs on the [[equity of redemption]] (obscured)}}}}
{{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]], wouldn’t they.
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Trust]]
*[[Trust]]
{{c|Trusts}}

Latest revision as of 14:03, 16 October 2023

A word about credit risk mitigation
Clogs on the equity of redemption (obscured)
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

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.

See also