- About
-
The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers
to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is
provided by the
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
Search results
Showing 11 to 14 of 14 (0.052 seconds)Spelling suggestions: "subject:"possesses""
| 11 |
Die strafbaarheid van furtum possessionis in die Suid-Afrikaanse regRoos, Cornelius Johannes 09 1900 (has links)
Text in Afrikaans / Theft in South African law is one of the most well-known
common law crimes. It is also one of the crimes in respect of
which opinions vary considerably.
Furtum possessionis is one of the manifestations of the crime
of theft at common law. The general requirements of furtum
possessionis were already established in Roman law. Emphasis
was not placed on the taker of the thing but on the particular
position of the person who was deprived of the property. This
approach was also followed in Roman-Dutch law.
Fur tum possessionis in South African law can be defined as
follows: It is the unlawful and intentional appropriation by
the owner or someone else of a movable corporeal thing in
commercio, in circumstances in which the possessor of the
thing has a valid right of retention of the thing, with the
intention of depriving the possessor permanently of control of
the thing.
Theft in the form of furtum possessionis differs in an
important respect from theft in the form of the removal of a
thing. In the case of removal the complainant can also be a
person acting as a holder, that is someone exercising control
of the thing on behalf of the owner. In the case of furtum
possessionis the complainant is the person with the right of
retention and from whose possession the thing is taken away.
The accused either possesses the thing as an owner or as a
holder before possession of the thing was transferred to the
complainant. Mere possession is not enough. The possession of
the complainant has to be accompanied by a right to retention.
Furthermore the possession of the thing has to be lawful / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. (Criminal & Procedural Law)
|
| 12 |
Borgenärsskydd för lösöre i överlåtarens vård : Besittningskonstitut – hur främmande är det egentligen för svensk sakrätt?Danielson, Axel January 2021 (has links)
No description available.
|
| 13 |
Borgenärsskydd för lösöre i överlåtarens vård : Besittningskonstitut – hur främmande är det egentligen för svensk sakrätt? / Protection Against the Transferor's Creditors for Moviable Property Detained With the Transferor : Possesion Agency – How Alien Is It Really for Swedish Property Law?Danielson, Axel January 2022 (has links)
Swedish property law, when it comes to acquisition of movable property, the transferee does not acquire ownership as such, instead, the sale is considered protected against the claim of the seller’s creditors (borgenärsskydd). This is achieved through the delivery principle (traditionsprincipen), meaning in its Swedish sense that movable property must not necessarily be delivered into the trans- feree’s possession, but rather that the transferor’s possibility to dispose over the movable is severed. This principle has been subjected to considerable alterations, mainly due to allowing situations where the delivery principle would otherwise be practically impossible. These alterations raise the question of how far these legal solutions can be detached from the fundamental principle. Therefore, it is relevant to ponder, if these solutions, which can merely be considered as artificial solutions to satisfy a formal requirement, are like the constitutum possessorium of civil law orders This thesis will attend to this issue, addressing the following three questions: Question (i): how does the concept of ownership apply to legal questions in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and the Draft Common Frame of Reference respectively? Question (ii): does Swedish property law grant protection against the transferor’s creditors although the movable is detained with the transferor? Question (iii): is there any systematic compatibility in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and DCFR respectively? Espe- cially when the movable is detained with the transferor. In relation to question (i), it has been found that in DCFR, ownership is closely linked with possession, which means that ownership follows the delivery of possession. This is not necessarily the case in Swedish property law. Question (ii) is answered in connection to a study of Swedish case-law, which results in that the movable can be detained with the transferor, provided that some require- ments are fulfilled, only if it is a result of a physical action and not solely due to a contract. However, case-law has evolved this general rule to be subjected to a propensity of looking past, or creating new, requirements in order not to create unnecessary complications of compliance as far as it concerns honest transac- tions. This has resulted in a kind of peculiar flexibility. In answer to question (iii), due to the new types of solutions created not to complicate certain transactions, the possibility of reaching similar results as the continental principle is more prominent than one might have thought. Despite certain resemblances, the sys- tematic compatibility must be seen as limited, due to the difference in the respec- tive rules’ aim.
|
| 14 |
Borgenärsskydd för lösöre i överlåtarens vård : Besittningskonstitut - hur främmande är det egentligen för svensk sakrätt? / Protection Against the Transferor’s Creditor for Movable Property Detained With the Transferor : Possession Agency - Is It Really That Alien for Swedish Property LawDanielson, Axel January 2022 (has links)
Swedish property law, when it comes to acquisition of movable property, the transferee does not acquire ownership as such, instead, the sale is considered protected against the claim of the seller’s creditors (borgenärsskydd). This is achieved through the delivery principle (traditionsprincipen), meaning in its Swedish sense that movable property must not necessarily be delivered into the trans- feree’s possession, but rather that the transferor’s possibility to dispose over the movable is severed. This principle has been subjected to considerable alterations, mainly due to allowing situations where the delivery principle would otherwise be practically impossible. These alterations raise the question of how far these legal solutions can be detached from the fundamental principle. Therefore, it is relevant to ponder, if these solutions, which can merely be considered as artificial solutions to satisfy a formal requirement, are like the constitutum possessorium of civil law orders This thesis will attend to this issue, addressing the following three questions: Question (i): how does the concept of ownership apply to legal questions in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and the Draft Common Frame of Reference respectively? Question (ii): does Swedish property law grant protection against the transferor’s creditors although the movable is detained with the transferor? Question (iii): is there any systematic compatibility in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and DCFR respectively? Espe- cially when the movable is detained with the transferor. In relation to question (i), it has been found that in DCFR, ownership is closely linked with possession, which means that ownership follows the delivery of possession. This is not necessarily the case in Swedish property law. Question (ii) is answered in connection to a study of Swedish case-law, which results in that the movable can be detained with the transferor, provided that some require- ments are fulfilled, only if it is a result of a physical action and not solely due to a contract. However, case-law has evolved this general rule to be subjected to a propensity of looking past, or creating new, requirements in order not to create unnecessary complications of compliance as far as it concerns honest transac- tions. This has resulted in a kind of peculiar flexibility. In answer to question (iii), due to the new types of solutions created not to complicate certain transactions, the possibility of reaching similar results as the continental principle is more prominent than one might have thought. Despite certain resemblances, the sys- tematic compatibility must be seen as limited, due to the difference in the respec- tive rules’ aim.
|
Page generated in 0.063 seconds