Clog on the equity of redemption: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "thumb|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...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Clogs.jpg|thumb|Clogs on the equity of redemption (obscured)]] | {{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 ownerships comes this proof that a fundament of the law of equity has its origins in Netherlands. For otherwise it would be sneakers on the equity of redemption, wouldn't they. | [[File:Clogs.jpg|thumb|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 ownerships comes this proof that a fundament of the law of equity has its origins in Netherlands. For otherwise it would be sneakers on the [[equity of redemption]], wouldn't they. | |||
Revision as of 16:53, 9 March 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 ownerships comes this proof that a fundament of the law of equity has its origins in Netherlands. For otherwise it would be sneakers on the equity of redemption, wouldn't they.