Rye v Rye: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|casenote|
{{a|casenote|
[[File:JCLR.png|450px|thumb|center|A shelf in the JC’s library yesterday]]
{{image|JCLR|png|A shelf in the JC’s library yesterday}}
}}{{cite|Rye|Rye|1962|AC|496}} stands as [[common law]] authority — from [[Lord Denning]], no less — for the proposition that “one cannot grant oneself a lease”, but is even more compelling testimony to the unlimited caprice of the English litigant.  
}}{{cite|Rye|Rye|1962|AC|496}} stands as [[common law]] authority — from [[Lord Denning]], no less — for the proposition that “one cannot grant oneself a lease”, but is even more compelling testimony to the unlimited caprice of the English litigant.  


Line 7: Line 7:
There is a certain kind of fellow who could start a fight in an empty building, as we all know. But when he is fighting about the [[Ontology|ontological]] essence of his claim to be in that building, that is a whole other thing.
There is a certain kind of fellow who could start a fight in an empty building, as we all know. But when he is fighting about the [[Ontology|ontological]] essence of his claim to be in that building, that is a whole other thing.


There is, no doubt, a sanguine explanation to be found in the 1962 volume of the Appeals Cases and being, as it was, penned by a giant of modern jurisprudence and a man of no small literary talent, would doubtless repay reading, but  — inasmuch as it would displace the mental image I currently have, of a man pursuing himself to the highest tribunal in the land to contest his right to occupy his own house — it would still rank as a disappointment, so I do not propose to find out what that explanation is, and would thank anyone who does happen to know, to keep it to themselves.
There is, no doubt, a sanguine explanation to be found in the 1962 volume of the Appeals Cases and being, as it was, penned by a giant of modern jurisprudence and a man of no small literary talent, doubtless it would repay reading, but  — inasmuch as it would displace the image I currently have, of a man pursuing himself to the highest tribunal in the land to contest his right to occupy his own house — it would still rank as a disappointment, so I do not propose to find out what that explanation is, and would thank anyone who does happen to know, to keep it to themselves.


For now, rest assured: you cannot grant yourself a lease.
For now, rest assured: you cannot grant yourself a lease.


{{Sa}}
{{Sa}}
*[[Albert Haddock]] (he of the [[negotiable]] cow)
*[[Counterparts]]
*[[Counterparts]]
*[[Inter-affiliate ISDA negotiation]]
*[[Inter-affiliate ISDA negotiation]]


{{ref}}
{{ref}}