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 |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{anat|security}} | {{anat|security}} | ||
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. | ||
[[File:Clogs.jpg|thumb|left| | [[File:Clogs.jpg|thumb|left|450px|Clogs on the [[equity of redemption]] (obscured)]] | ||
{{egg}} | {{egg}} | ||
Revision as of 15:39, 6 November 2018
|
A word about credit risk mitigation
{{{2}}}
|
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.
