Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
If the vehicle is taken with the owner's knowledge, the owner has consented. But apparent consent can be ignored if obtained by a deception, e.g. giving a false identity when hiring a car. This overlaps with the offence of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006.
Adverse possession in common law, and the related civil law concept of usucaption (also acquisitive prescription or prescriptive acquisition), are legal mechanisms under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property, usually real property, may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation without the permission of its legal owner.
Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". [1] In England and Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. [2] Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that ...
The Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.It amends the Theft Act 1968 by creating the specific offence of aggravated vehicle-taking, which combines the taking of a vehicle without the owner's consent with driving it dangerously, causing injury, or causing damage to the vehicle or other property.
Possession of a thing for long enough can become ownership by termination of the previous owner's right of possession and ownership rights. In the same way, the passage of time can bring to an end the owner's right to recover exclusive possession of a property without losing the ownership of it, as when an adverse easement for use is granted by ...
The vast majority of states in the United States employ a system of recording legal instruments (otherwise known as deeds registration) that affect the title of real estate as the exclusive means for publicly documenting land titles and interests.
The original owner can obtain protection against the former owner through the doctrine of estoppel (see also, s 21(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 "unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to sell"). Methods of the estoppel can be by words, by conduct, or by negligence.
The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City (1973). [3] In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal.