Illegal property transfer

The related concepts of adverse possession and limitation were discussed in this section. Many possible rules are hidden in these two concepts. One could say, for example, that the expiration of the statute of limitations only prohibits disputes, but does not prohibit rights (strictly speaking the statute of limitations). Or one would say that the past of the statutory period prohibits both disputes and rights, but this will not create any new rights (elimination of the statute of limitations) on the aggrieved owner. In other words, the detrimental owner, or the person who complied with the statute of limitations, acquired ownership of the statute of limitations (strictly speaking, it is a statute of limitations). Ordinary legal systems and civil legal systems generally take a more extreme standpoint, that is, once the rights of the original owners are eliminated, those who provide for these rights or adverse rights will have new original ownership. In any case, this means that the new owner can prove his ownership without showing how the previous owner acquired his ownership. It may also mean that he is not subject to restrictions that the original owner can agree to. The exercise of expropriation rights usually also leads to new titles of sovereignty.

Subsequent acquisitions

Since property, privilege, or power belongs to one person, it is possible to ask whether the right, power, or privilege has passed to another. This is a common possibility in Western law. Freedom of contract and freedom of property (i.e. the right to enter into freely enforceable contracts and to transfer them at the discretion of the owner) are the two pillars of the market. Despite the challenges posed by the widespread regulation and socialization of Western market economies, the principle of transfer of property remains unhindered. Freedom of alienation is less common in non-foreign economies and legal systems. However, even these systems allow alienation in different conditions.

Contract and transfer

Any legal system that distinguishes between property and debt (as in all Western systems) will identify isolation in the promise of asset sharing. The promise can be fully realized between the parties; may also affect the rights of third parties recognizing the promise. But until the goods are delivered, the original owner has a real right over the goods (well, especially against the rest of the world) and the guarantor has a binding obligation only to transfer the property. In most cases, the contract and the transfer are made simultaneously, and the difference between them does not make any difference. If a person buys a watch from jewelry, pays for it, and leaves the shop in his or her hands, a contract of sale and delivery of the watch has occurred; there is no reason to distinguish between the two.

However, if person A does not pay for the watch but wears it outside the store and then hands it over to a third person, it becomes important to find out if the jeweler still had the watch in his possession when the watch has been moved (in which case the jeweler can retrieve it by a third person) or if person A owns the watch (in this case, a third person now owns it, and the only jeweler is against person A). Likewise, if person A paid for the watch but left it with jewelry to tie it and the jeweler transferred it to a third party before person A returned to pick it up, it is important to find out if the jeweler still has it. the watch (in this case, the third party now owns it and person A’s only remedy is against the jeweler) or if person A owns the watch as soon as he pays for it (in which case, he can get the watch back from the third party, and the cure, if any, would be against the jeweler). In the example given above, there are three possible points the property can skip: (1) when a contract is made between a jeweler and person A (usually when they agree on a price and a thing to do. It’s sold), (2) when person A pays for the watch, or (3) when the jeweler hands him the watch.

In general, Western law takes first or third place and leaves the second option for personal agreement between the parties. Therefore, unless otherwise agreed, Western law generally provides that transfer of ownership takes place when a valid transfer agreement is made or when the matter has been handed over to the transferor.

Recording and recording

In the clock model, the difference between the contract and the transfer became significant when the rights of the third party were violated. However, from a third party perspective, any of the three proposed transfer rules may be unsatisfactory because it may be difficult for a third party to determine if a contract has been made, payment has been made, or even if the property has been transferred to the buyer and not the debtor or employer. To protect third parties in such cases, a number of legal systems provide for the recording or recording of transactions, particularly those involving high-value items (e.g. aircraft, boats, or vehicles) or long-term operations (such as land).

The registration process is divided into two general categories. The first type provides registration of rights. Under this system, title transfers are not made until the transfer is registered in the system. This is the German system of Grundbuch, where headers are registered and car registration systems are available in the United States. Another type of system is the recording system. In such a system, the transfer is successful without registration, but if it is not put up for sale, the trustworthy customer who relies on the record is not protected. According to this system, the owner can transfer a good name to another innocent person on the days when the record shows that he is still the owner if the owner does not inform him about a new job. This is a growing trend in many US states by land and under the French land transfer registration system. The English land registration system is more like the German system than the French or American system.