0
Vincent Ding Posted 21 years ago
Legal Studies

Property V. Title

0 I seem to have come across both the following two expressions "property in the goods" and "title to the goods". i'm wondering whether both are correct expressions, and if so whether there is any difference in their meanings. I know that jus ad rem or real right is a complicated thing in civil law. but in raising the above question, my primary concern is how to express the ownership of a thing. 0-
  

Top answer

0They seem to be something different, but I can find nothing definitive. ): 02br 02br 02br 003. PASSING OF PROPERTY 02br 00(a) The ownership and the property in the goods shall remain in the Company until all monies due under the Contract have been paid to the Company.

  • 0They seem to be something different, but I can find nothing definitive.
  • ): 02br 02br 02br 003.
  • PASSING OF PROPERTY 02br 00(a) The ownership and the property in the goods shall remain in the Company until all monies due under the Contract have been paid to the Company.
  • 02br 00(b)Until the property and ownership in the goods has passed to the Purchaser as aforesaid, the Company shall be entitled to insure the goods in the Company's name and at the expense of the Purchaser.
  • 02br 00(c) Until the ownership and the property in the goods has passed to the Purchaser, the Purchaser shall not sell, let on hire, mortgage, charge, pledge, transfer as security or part with possession of the goods or purport to do so.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

8 Answers
0
0They seem to be something different, but I can find nothing definitive. Here is an excerpt from a contract I found (I presume that 'ownership' = 'title'?): 02br
02br
02br
003. PASSING OF PROPERTY 02br
00(a) The ownership and the property in the goods shall remain in the Company until all monies due under the Contract have been paid to the Company. 02b
0
0 As a term 'title' does not refer limitedly to ownership. Ownership may be one title underwhich goods may be held. goods may also be held under a title of lease. 02br
00When you purchase a cae under a hire purchase agreement, the buyer pays installments to the seller on a monthly basis. until all installments are fully paid up the buyer is considered a lessee and holds a title as
0
"Title" implies that you are the person legally entitled to dispose of the goods to a third party. "Ownership" (where it is separated from title) implies that you are the person entitled to use the thing owned.

Contracts for the sale of goods often contain a "retention of title" clause. This protects the seller and makes it clear that until the goods are paid for they cannot pass into the
0
I think this is the right track. One can have a property right even though one does not own title. This is evident in landlord/tenant relationships. Although the landlord will own title, the tenant has certain substantial property rights, even absent ownership of title.
0
One cold morning about 4;30 a.m my brother (Willie) called me. and ask us to take him to the bus station

My brother's (Willie) girlfriend had put him out and he ask us (boyfriend) to come take him to the bus station because he was moving back to New Orleans, and that I coul have the car. My brother gave me the title to the car after I got there. While we were waiting to go to the stat
0
TimKowal Although the landlord will own title, the tenant has certain substantial property rights, even absent ownership of title.
Regrettably the position with respect to land is more complicated. Concurrent interests may exist in land, each with its own title. Thus a landlord will have his title, but the tenant equally will have his title deriving fr
0
Gifts can be tricky. Generally you're going to have a hard time showing superior right over the "giver," since you didn't pay anything.

The good news is that you certainly have a right in the increased value of the car due to your repairs and improvements.

You might still have some recourse in getting the whole car, it will just depend on details and the judge. Is the
0
The reason why you are having difficulty with this clause is becuase it is intended specifically to deliniate between ownership (inthis case possession) and title. Specifically, this is a "retention of title" clause. This type of clause is used by sellers to ensure that title (a legal right to possession, ie defensible in court) remains with the seller (even though possession is with the buyer) un

Related Questions