83,584
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|casenote|}}{{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. | {{a|casenote| | ||
{{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. | |||
For what kind of fellow would get into an argument with himself of sufficient feist as to bring formal legal proceedings against himself — let alone, upon losing them, to ''appeal'' it, all the way to the House of Lords? This is a feat of [[Albert Haddock|Haddock]]ian proportions | For what kind of fellow would get into an argument with himself of sufficient feist as to bring formal legal proceedings against himself — let alone, upon losing them, to ''appeal'' it, all the way to the House of Lords? This is a feat of [[Albert Haddock|Haddock]]ian proportions. | ||
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 | 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, 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}} |