Security interest: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Security interest (view source)

Revision as of 11:37, 1 February 2023

123 bytes added , 1 February 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-:''It is sometimes said that there are only four types of consensual [[Security interest|security right]] known to the law, namely [[pledge]], [[lien]], [[mortgage]] and [[charge]].'' — Briggs J in {{casenote1|Re Lehman Brothers International}} <br>
+{{a|security|}}{{quote|
+“It is sometimes said that there are only four types of consensual [[Security interest|security right]] known to the law, namely [[pledge]], [[lien]], [[mortgage]] and [[charge]].” <br> — Briggs J in {{casenote1|Re Lehman Brothers International}} }}
 {{tag|Security}} can take many forms, depending on your legal system.  We here are principally concerned with the common law. That is, the proper one. The overweening piece of statute here is the [[Law of Property Act 1925]].
@@ Line 16: / Line 17: @@
 ==={{t|Collateral}}: A {{t|Trick for young players}}===
-“{{t|Collateral}}” can be represented by, but is ''not'' the same as, a {{security interest}}.
+“{{t|Collateral}}” can be represented by, but is ''not'' the same as, a {{t|security interest}}.
-A [[title transfer collateral arrangement]] where one party delivers [[collateral]] to another as credit support in the hopeful expectation that, at a later time, it will get an [[equivalent]] thing back<ref>Such as is witnessed under a {{1994csa}} or a {{GMSLA}} for example.</ref>, is ''not'' a {{tag|legal security}} interest. It isn't a security interest at all, in fact. This is good, because there is none of this tedious mucking around with equity, formalities, registration and the fear and loathing of transactional lawyers that accompanies them. The worst that can do is issue veiled threats about the risk of [[recharacterisation]], but this is poor form and really rather [[passive aggressive]] behaviour, in this correspondent’s opinion.
+A [[title transfer collateral arrangement]] where one party delivers [[collateral]] to another as credit support in the hopeful expectation that, at a later time, it will get an [[equivalent]] thing back<ref>Such as is witnessed under a {{1994csa}} or a {{GMSLA}} for example.</ref>, is ''not'' a {{tag|legal security}} interest. It isn’t a security interest at all, in fact. This is good, because there is none of this tedious mucking around with equity, formalities, registration and the fear and loathing of transactional lawyers that accompanies them. The worst that can do is issue veiled threats about the risk of [[recharacterisation]], but this is poor form and really rather [[passive aggressive]] behaviour, in this correspondent’s opinion.
-{{See also}}
+{{amending security interests}}
+{{sa}}
 *[[Charge]]
 *[[Law of Property Act 1925]]
+*[[Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994]]
 *[[Nosferatu]]
+{{ref}}