83,199
edits
Enforcing security: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|repack|}}Commercial legal eagles know a lot about ''taking'' security and ''granting'' security, but are usually well-clear of the blast radius by the time it comes to ''enforcing'' security. They will talk airily of enforcing security without necessarily having a good practical grasp of what it means. Your first port of call should be the Law of Property Act 1925. One can take possession of the secured property, or appoint a receiver or administrator.") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|repack|}}Commercial legal eagles know a lot about ''taking'' security and ''granting'' security, but are usually well-clear of the blast radius by the time it comes to ''enforcing'' security. They will talk airily of enforcing security without necessarily having a good practical grasp of what it means. | {{a|repack|}}Commercial [[Legal eagle|legal eagles]] know a lot about ''taking'' security and ''granting'' [[Security interest|security]], but are usually well-clear of the blast radius by the time it comes to ''[[Enforcing security|enforcing]]'' security. They will talk airily of enforcing security without necessarily having a good practical grasp of what it means. | ||
In the world of repack, this is for the counterintuitive reason that ''it really doesn’t matter''. One does ''not'' enforce security in a [[Repackaging programme|repack]]. To do so is to have admit you have failed in your one job. | |||
====Why it’s best not to be giddy about enforcing security in a repack==== | |||
{{limited value of security in repack}} | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Event of default]] | |||
*[[Repack Anatomy]] | |||
*[[Limited recourse]] | |||