DOCSLIB.ORG

Property Law Cases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Property Law Cases TABLE OF CASES UK Cases ...................................................................................................................................... 2 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X-Z US Cases ...................................................................................................................................... 81 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X-Z Australian Cases ....................................................................................................................... 168 Canadian Cases .......................................................................................................................... 171 New Zealand Cases ................................................................................................................... 174 1 back to the top TABLE OF UK CASES A A Ketley Ltd v Scott [1981] ICR 241, 130 NLJ 749 Abbey Homesteads Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (1982) 263 EG 983, 264 EG 151, 154, [1982] 2 EGLR 18 (LT) Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56, [1990] 1 All ER 1085 (HL) Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56, [1990] 1 All ER 1085, 1101 (HL) Abernethie v AM and J Kleiman Ltd (1969) 211 EG 405, [1970] 1 QB 10 Abram Steamship Co v Westvill Shipping Co [1923] AC 773, 781 (HL) Ackland v Lutley (1839) 9 Ed & El 879, 894, 112 Eng Rep 1446 Acton v Blundell (1843) 12 M & W 324, 152 Eng Rep 1223 Adagio Properties Ltd v Ansari [1998] 35 EG 86 (CA) Adams and Wade Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1965) 18 P & CR 60, 67 Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, 106 Eng Rep 250 Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd v Crabbe [1958] 1 QB 513, [1957] 3 All ER 563 (CA) Adelphi Estates v Christie (1983) 47 P & CR 650 Afovos Shipping Co SA v Pagnan [1983] 1 WLR 195, [1983] 1 All ER 449 (HL) Afovos Shipping Co SA v Pagnan [1983] 1 WLR 195, [1983] 1 All ER 449, 455 (HL) A-G (ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd) v Brotherton [1991] 1 AC 425, 436 (HL) A-G of Hong Kong v Humphreys Estate [1987] 1 AC 114, 127H-128B (CA) A-G of Ontario v Mercer (1883) 8 App Cas 767, 772 (PC) A-G of Southern Nigeria v John Holt & Co (Liverpool) Ltd [1915] AC 955, 617 (PC) A-G of Southern Nigeria v John Holt and Co (Liverpool) Ltd [1915] AC 599 (PC) A-G of Straits Settlement v Wemyss (1888) 13 App Cas 192 (PC) A-G of the Duchy of Lancaster v GE Overton (Farms) Ltd [1982] Ch 277, 288 A-G of the Duchy of Lancaster v GE Overton (Farms) Ltd, supra at 291–2 AG Securities v Vaughan, Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417, [1988] 3 All ER 1058 (HL) A-G v Biphosphated Guano Co (1879) 11 Ch D 337 A-G v British Museum Trustees [1903] 2 Ch 598 A-G v Chambers (1854) 4 De GM & G 206, 217–8, 43 Eng Rep 486 A-G v Chambers (1854) 4 De GM & G 206, 43 Eng Rep 486 A-G v Colchester Corporation [1952] Ch 586, 592 2 back to the top TABLE OF UK CASES A-G v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel [1920] 1 AC 508 (HL) A-G v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel [1920] 1 AC 508, 576 (HL) A-G v Great Eastern Ry Co (1880) 5 App Cas 473, 478 A-G v Hanmer (1858) 27 LJ Ch 837, 840, 45 Eng Rep 80 A-G v Jacobs-Smith [1895] 2 QB 341 A-G v Jewish Colonization Association [1901] 1 KB 123, 143 (CA) A-G v Moore [1893] 1 Ch 676, 683 A-G v P. Y. A. Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169, 191 (CA) A-G v Pyle (1738) 1 Atk 435, 26 Eng Rep 278 A-G v Sands (1669) Hard 488, 491, 145 Eng Rep 56 Ahmed v Kendrick (1987) 56 P & CR 120 (CA) Ainsdale Investments Ltd v First Secretary of State [2004] EWHC 1010; [2004] 22 EG 141 Ajit (Chintamanie) v Joseph Mootoo Sammy [1967] 1 AC 255 (PC) Aker v Collingwood Housing Association [2007] 25 EG 184 (CA) Alan (WJ) & Co Ltd v El Nasr Export and Import Co [1972] WLR 800, 814, [1972] 2 All ER 127, 140 (CA) Alan Estates Ltd v WG Stores Ltd [1981] 3 All ER 486 (CA) Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley [1999] 1 WLR 894 (HL) Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley [1999] 1 WLR 894, 895 (HL) Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley [1999] 1 WLR 894, 896 (HL) Aldin v Latimer Clark, Muirhead & Co [1894] 2 Ch 437 Aldred’s Case (1610) 9 Co Rep 57b, 58a, 77 Eng Rep 816 Aldred’s Case (1610) 9 Co Rep at p. 57b Aldridge v Ferne (1886) 17 QBD 212 Alfred F Beckett v Lyons [1967] Ch 449, 482B Allen v Greenwood [1980] Ch 119, 134, 135 (CA) Allen v Greenwood, supra at 131B, 135B Allen v Veranne Builders Ltd [1988] NPC 11 Alliance and Leicester plc v Slayford [2001] 1 All ER (Comm), (2001) 81 P & CR DG10 Allnatt London Properties [1983] 1 EGLR 73 Alpenstow v Regalian Properties [1985] 1 WLR 721, [1982] 2 All ER 97 Altham’s Case (1610) 8 Co Rep 150b, 153b, 77 Eng Rep 701 Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v John Walker and Sons Ltd [1977] 1 WLR164, [1976] 3 All ER 509 (CA) 3 back to the top TABLE OF UK CASES Amalgamated Property Co. v Texas Bank [1982] QB 84, 131, [1981] 3 WLR 565, 583 (CA) Amec Developments Ltd v Jury’s Hotel Management (UK) Ltd [2001] 07 EG 163, (2001) P & CR 22 Ammonia Soda Company v Chamberlain [1918] 1 Ch 266, 286, [1916–7] All ER Rep 708, 713 (CA) Ammonia Soda Company v Chamberlain, supra at 286–7, at 713 Amoco Australia Pty. Ltd v Rocca Bros [1975] AC 561 (PC) Amodu Tijani v The Secretary, Southern Nigeria [1921] 2 AC 399, 407 (PC) Amyer v Pluck (1971) 223 EG 33 Anchor Brewhouse Developments v Berkley House (Developments) Ltd [1987] 2 EGLR 173 Anderson v Bostock [1976] Ch 312 Anderson v Commercial Union Assurance Co (1885) 55 LJ QB 146, 149 (CA) Andrews v Ramsay & Co [1903] 2 KB 635, 638 Andrews v Ramsey & Co [1903] 2 KB 635, 638 Andrews v Waite [1907] 2 Ch 500, 510 Anglia Building Society v Sheffield City Council (1982) 266 EG 311 (CA) Angus v Dalton (1878) 4 QBD 162, 169 (CA) Ankerson v Connerly [1907] 1 Ch 678 Anno (temp 1509–46) Bro NC 61, 73 ER 874 Anns v Merton London Borough [1978] AC 728, 751–2 (HL) Anon. (1478) YB 17, Edw. IV, 1 Anon. (1515) 3 Dyer 345a, 73 Eng Rep 776 Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe v McOscar [1924] 1 KB 716, 734 (CA) Appleby v Meyers (1867) LR 2 CP 65 1 Aribisala v St James’ Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd [2007] EWHC 1694, 25 EG 183 Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1985] 2 All ER 385 Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 3 All ER 371, 374 (CA) Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1 (CA) Ashbury Ry Carriage & Iron Co Ltd v Riche [1875] LR 7 HL 653 (HL) Asher v Whitlock (1865) LR 1 QB 1 Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council [2002] UKHL 59, [2002] 05 EG 133 (HL) Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council, supra Assaly v Ontario (Minister of Revenue) (1986) 30 DLR (4th) 291 (HC Can) Associated Cinema Properties v Hampstead Borough Council [1944] KB 412 (CA) 4 back to the top TABLE OF UK CASES Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (CA) Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, 228, 233 (CA) Aston Charities Trust Ltd v Stepney Borough Council [1952] 2 QB 642, (1952) 3 P & CR 82 (LT) Aston Charities Trust Ltd v Stepney Borough Council, supra Atcherley v Du Moulin 2 K & J 186, 69 Eng Rep 746 Athill v Athill (1880) 16 Ch D 214 (CA) Attorney General (NSW) v Brown (1847) 1 Legge 312 Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, 278G (HL) Attorney-General (Cth) R.T. Co. Pty Ltd (No. 2) (1957) 97 CLR 146 Attree v Hawe (1878) 9 Ch D 337 (CA) Attwood v Bovis Homes Ltd [2001] Ch 379 Attwood v Bovis Homes Ltd [2001] Ch 379, [2000] 4 All ER 948 Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571 Attwood v Llay Main Collieries [1926] Ch 444, 458 Attwood v Small (1838) 6 Cl & F 232, 7 Eng Rep 684 (HL) Austerberry v Oldham Corporation (1885) 29 Ch D 750 Avraamides v Colwill 2006 EWCA Civ 1533 (CA) Axa Equity and Law Home Loans Ltd v Hirani Watson (1999) EGCS 90 5 back to the top TABLE OF UK CASES B B.T.E. v Merseyside and Cheshire Rent Assessment Committee (1991) 24 HLR 514) Back v Stacey (1826) 2 C&P 465 Backer v Secretary of State for the Environment [1983] JPL 602 Bacon v Bacon (1639) Toth 133, 134, 21 Eng Rep 146 Bagettes Ltd v GP Estates Ltd [1956] Ch 290 (CA) Bain v Fothergill [1874] LR 7 HL 158 (HL) Baker v Dewey 1 B & C 704, 709, 107 Eng Rep 259, 260 (1823) Baldwin’s Ltd v Halifax Corp’n (1916) 85 LJ KB 1769, 1774 Ball v Plummer (1879) The Times, June 17 (CA) Ballard (Kent) Ltd v Olliver Ashworth (Holdings) Ltd [1997] 19 EG 161 Ballard v Tomlinson (1885) 29 Ch D 115, 121 Bamford v Turnley (1862) 3 B & S 67, 77, 122 Eng Rep 27 Banff Magistrates v Ruthin Castle Ltd (1944) SC 36, 68 Banning v Wright [1972] 1 WLR 972, 979, [1972] 2 All ER 987, 998 (HL) Bannister v Bannister [1948] 2 All ER 133 (CA) Banque Bruxelles SA v Eagle Star [1997] AC 191, 221 (HL) Banque Financière de la Cité v Westgate Insurance Co Ltd [1991] 2 AC 249, [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 377, [1990] 2 All ER 947 (HL) Barber v Secretary of the Environment and Horsham DC [1991] JPL 559) Barclays Bank plc v Kingston [2006] EWHC 533, [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 519 Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien [1993] 3 WLR 786, 792, [1993] 4 All ER 417, 423 (HL) Barff v Probyn (1895) 64 LJ QB 557, [1895–9] All ER Rep 1038 Barker v Barker (1829) 3 Car & P 557, 172 Eng Rep 544 Barker v Eynon [1974] All ER 905 Barling (David W.) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1980] JPL 594) Barnes v Sheffield City Council (1995) 27 HLR 719 (CA) Barnett v Covell (1903) 68 JP 93, 94 Barnwell v Harris (1809) 1 Taunt 430, 432, 127 Eng Rep 901 Barrett v Lounova (1982) Ltd [1990] 1 QB 348, 358, [1989] 1 All ER 351, 357 (CA) Barrett v Morgan [1998] 50 EG 87 Barrett v Morgan, supra 6 back to the top TABLE OF UK CASES Barrett v White (1855) 24 LJ Ch 724, 726 Barry v Hasseldine [1952] Ch 835, 838 Barton v Morris [1985] 2 All ER 1032) Barwick’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Law Contract Examining Bodies
    9 th 9 CASE TH editio EDITIO n 9TH Paul Richard’s Law of Contract, now in its ninth edition, presents a trusted EDITIOn account of the main principles of contract law, using clear explanations and N A R law law O contemporary applications. In an area of law that is growing in complexity n V I G A T and importance, a firm grasp of the fundamental principles is essential. POWERED BY This book provides this necessary foundation whilst also considering recent paul richards proposals for reform so that the reader can gain an understanding of the overall development of the law. law of contract This new edition has been thoroughly revised and fully updated to include: • O’Brien v MGN Ltd and Sterling Hydraulics Ltd v Dichtomatik Ltd, on the requirement of ‘reasonable notice’ in exemption clauses of • Careful consideration of exemption clauses and the principles governing non-intervention of the courts under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977and the case of Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd contract • Further analysis of restitutionary damages and differences between the Wrotham Park and Blake decisions by the Court of Appeal in WWF World Wide Fund for Nature v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment • Analysis of the House of Lords’ decision on breach of contract in Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) • Commentary on the House of Lords’ decision in Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (‘The Achilleas’) and the rule in Hadley v Baxendale www.mylawchamber.co.uk/richards • Over forty new cases which represent important developments in the law This text is supported by a mylawchamber website which includes: of contract • Updates to chapters on Agreement, Consideration, Mistake, For students: regular case and legislation updates, web links, interactive self-test Misrepresentation, and Privity of Contract questions, practice assessment questions, an online glossary and flashcards for key terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Rights to Light Consultation
    Law Commission Consultation Paper No 210 RIGHTS TO LIGHT A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod and Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic of this consultation: This Consultation Paper examines the law as it relates to rights to light. Rights to light are a type of easement which entitle a benefited owner to receive light to his or her windows over a neighbour’s land. We discuss the current law and set out a number of provisional proposals and questions on which we would appreciate consultees’ views. Geographical scope: This Consultation Paper applies to the law of England and Wales. Impact assessment: In Chapter 1 of this Consultation Paper we ask consultees to provide evidence in respect of a number of issues relating to rights to light, such as the costs of engaging in rights to light disputes. Any evidence that we receive will assist us in the production of an impact assessment and will inform our final recommendations for reform. Availability of materials: The consultation paper is available on our website at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/consultations/rights-to-light.htm. Duration of the consultation: We invite responses from 18 February 2013 to 16 May 2013. Comments may be sent: By email to [email protected] OR By post to Nicholas Macklam, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020 3334 0200 / Fax: 020 3334 0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, whenever possible, you could also send them electronically (for example, on CD or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format).
    [Show full text]
  • Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century a Consultative Document
    LAW COMMISSION H M LAND REGISTRY LAND REGISTRATION FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY A CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT CONTENTS Paragraph Page FOREWORD 1 PART I: INTRODUCTION 2 INTRODUCTION 1.1 2 The move to electronic conveyancing 1.2 2 The deficiencies of the present legislation 1.3 3 The need to develop principles appropriate to registered land 1.5 3 BACKGROUND 1.7 4 THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT 1997 1.10 5 THE CRITERIA FOR REFORM 1.11 6 The agreed objectives 1.12 6 CONSULTATION 1.15 7 THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1.16 8 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT 1.17 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1.19 9 PART II: LAND REGISTRATION TODAY – A CRITICAL OVERVIEW 10 INTRODUCTION 2.1 10 GENERAL PRINCIPLES: THE CONCEPT OF LAND REGISTRATION 2.2 10 Conveyancing in unregistered land 2.2 10 Registered land 2.4 11 The move towards total registration 2.8 12 THE LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK 2.10 13 H M Land Registry 2.10 13 The register 2.11 13 INTERESTS IN REGISTERED LAND 2.13 14 Registrable interests 2.13 14 Overriding interests 2.16 15 Minor interests 2.19 16 MAKING DISPOSITIONS OF REGISTERED LAND 2.20 17 Introduction 2.20 17 Registered dispositions 2.21 17 Priority searches 2.24 18 Minor interests 2.25 19 RECTIFICATION AND INDEMNITY 2.36 22 Rectification 2.37 22 Indemnity 2.40 23 ADVERSE POSSESSION 2.43 24 v Paragraph Page CONVEYANCING ISSUES 2.45 25 The move to electronic conveyancing 2.45 25 Proof of title 2.49 26 PART III: DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 27 INTRODUCTION 3.1 27 REGISTERED ESTATES 3.5 28 The present definition 3.5 28 Estates which may be registered 3.6 29 Registered
    [Show full text]
  • Property Law Notes
    Property Law Notes Part 1 out of 2 [125 pages] Contents: Definitions: What is Property? Distribution of Property Taxonomy Possession + Interference with Possession + Relativity of Title Ownership Tenure and Estates Introduction to Freehold & Leasehold Covenants Personal Property Rights: Security Interests Fixtures and Mixtures Sale of Goods Creation and Transfer + Formalities + Conveyancing Priorities at Common Law + Priorities in Equity Easements and Profits 1 What is Property? Right in rem = a right to a thing which is enforceable generally against other members of society. Right in personam = a right to a thing which is enforceable only against specific persons. The division between property rights and personal rights is based on the enforceability of that right. Wide definition – assignability of rights: Most rights in rem and rights in personam can be transferred to others, and most have value. If can be assigned to third parties, indicates they might be proprietary in nature. A right that can be transferred to others may have value because it can be sold. These rights count as assets. Can consciously/actively assign property rights, or might be assigned to a third party by operation of law: o Death (intestacy provisions or will) o Bankruptcy (Insolvency Act, property is assigned/transferred to trustee in bankruptcy) o Wealth Some in rem rights can’t be assigned so wouldn’t be recognised as proprietary under the wider definition of assignability. Some things are in rem proprietary rights that can’t be assigned, e.g. non-assignable lease, easement (if you don’t have the DT or ST). One way to destroy an in rem right is to destroy the thing to which it relates.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Law, Fifth Edition
    BUSINESS LAW Fifth Edition This book is supported by a Companion Website, created to keep Business Law up to date and to provide enhanced resources for both students and lecturers. Key features include: ◆ termly updates ◆ links to useful websites ◆ links to ‘ebooks’ for introductory and further reading ◆ ‘ask the author’ – your questions answered www.cavendishpublishing.com/businesslaw BUSINESS LAW Fifth Edition David Kelly, PhD Principal Lecturer in Law Staffordshire University Ann Holmes, M Phil, PGD Dean of the Law School Staffordshire University Ruth Hayward, LLB, LLM Senior Lecturer in Law Staffordshire University Fifth edition first published in Great Britain 2005 by Cavendish Publishing Limited, The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX, United Kingdom Telephone: + 44 (0)20 7278 8000 Facsimile: + 44 (0)20 7278 8080 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cavendishpublishing.com Published in the United States by Cavendish Publishing c/o International Specialized Book Services, 5804 NE Hassalo Street, Portland, Oregon 97213-3644, USA Published in Australia by Cavendish Publishing (Australia) Pty Ltd 3/303 Barrenjoey Road, Newport, NSW 2106, Australia Email: [email protected] Website: www.cavendishpublishing.com.au © Kelly, D, Holmes, A and Hayward, R 2005 First edition 1995 Second edition 1997 Third edition 2000 Fourth edition 2002 Fifth edition 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of Cavendish Publishing Limited, or as expressly permitted by law, or under the terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Easements Across Seven Jurisdictions Within Property
    www.theblackletter.co.uk!1 www.theblackletter.co.ukNeil Egan-Ronayne www.theblackletter.co.ukDecember 2015 Property Law Implied Easements Gerry has been in possession of a registered fee simple estate or ‘freehold’ estate since September 1990. Barton (Construction) Ltd were the registered owners of the unadopted service road that runs along the rear of Gerry’s property up until March 2015 whereupon Barton (Construction) Ltd sold the road to Hyde Ltd as part of a land package. Hyde Ltd has since established a business operation that uses the service road for access. As part of that process they have also erected a lockable gate across the public highway end of the road that is only accessible by using keys held by their employees. Gerry has for a continuous period used the service road in order to park his car and by assumption it is understood that Gerry does not park on the service road itself rather he uses it only as a means of access. When considering Gerry’s position in relation to his denial of access to the service road it would be prudent to refer to the common law position on easements.1 For an easement to be legally considered there are a number of criteria first established in Re Ellenborough Park2 which when met permit such a justification: I. A dominant tenement3 and a servient tenement burdened by the easement must be shown to exist. II. The easement must benefit the dominant tenement. III. The dominant and servient tenements must fall under different ownership.4 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • PREFACE to 1895 EDITION, OUTLINE of CONTENTS and INDEX to COMPANIES LISTED in 1895 (PDF File
    PREFACE TO 1895 EDITION, OUTLINE OF CONTENTS & INDEX TO COMPANIES LISTED IN 1895 By 1895 the Stock Exchange Official Yearbook had settled into a format that it was to stay with for the duration. We reproduce the Preface, Outline of Contents and the Index to companies listed in 1895 to give readers an idea of the typical organisation of a yearbook, and of the great variety of companies covered in this and in future volumes. PREFACE. The year 1894 has not proved so favourable to business as was expected. This is chiefly due to the further considerable decline in the prices of natural products, and to some extent to the difficulty in bringing to a conclusion the tariff and other reforms in the United States to which President Cleveland had put his hand. But the year closes with a nearly complete absence of disturbing causes, though the prices of produce are still at their lowest, and the return to commercial and agricultural prosperity is in all parts of the world proceeding at an abnormally slow rate. But it is generally admitted that the worst is now more than over. This is an immense gain in itself, especially as regards Stock Exchange securities, amongst which selling from fear or necessity no sooner ceases than an upward movement on some scale sets in. A year ago we had to report a further considerable fall in the aggregate of Stock Exchange values; but for 1894 there has been a rise in prices which more than outsets the decline then reported, and to all appearance the upward movement is still in progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Direction and Discretion: the Roles of Centre and Branch in the Interwar Management of Marks and Spencer
    This is a repository copy of Direction and discretion: the roles of centre and branch in the interwar management of Marks and Spencer. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/83940/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Purvis, MC (2015) Direction and discretion: the roles of centre and branch in the interwar management of Marks and Spencer. History of Retailing and Consumption, 1 (1). pp. 63-81. ISSN 2373-518X https://doi.org/10.1080/2373518X.2015.1015239 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ 1 Direction and discretion: the roles of centre and branch in the interwar management of Marks and Spencer Martin Purvis School of Geography University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT UK [email protected] 2 Abstract The successful expansion of multiple retailing in interwar Britain is often seen to rest, in part, on the inculcation of efficient and uniform working practices throughout a company’s branch network.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction What Is Land?
    Introduction What is Land? - LPA 1925, s 205: ‘Land’ includes land of any tenure, and mines and minerals…’ land includes not just tangible physical property, but also intangible rights in the land, such as the right to walk across a neighbours driveway. - Land is the physical asset and the rights the owner and others enjoy over it. ‘The idea of property in land’ – Kevin Gray and Susan Francis Gray - The idea of property is fragile, elusive and misused - Property is not a thing but a relationship - Property is the word used to describe particular concentrations of power over things. Statutory Formalities: LPA 1925: - Provided a redefinition of what rights could be legal or equitable - Says a lot about joint ownership, creation of proprietary interests, nature of fee simples and leaseholds LPA 1925, s1: - Legal Estates and Equitable Interests - (1) The only estates in land which are capable of subsisting or of being conveyed or created at law are— . (a) An estate in fee simple absolute in possession; . (b) A term of years absolute. (2) The only interests or charges in or over land which are capable of subsisting or of being conveyed or created at law are— . (a) An easement, right, or privilege in or over land for an interest equivalent to an estate in fee simple absolute in possession or a term of years absolute; . (b) A rentcharge in possession issuing out of or charged on land being either perpetual or for a term of years absolute; . (c) A charge by way of legal mortgage; . (d). (e) Rights of entry exercisable over or in respect of a legal term of years absolute, or annexed, for any purpose, to a legal rentcharge.
    [Show full text]
  • A STUDY of the EVOLUTION of CONCENTRATION in the FOOD DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY for the UNITED KINGDOM October 1977
    COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES A STUDY OF THE EVOLUTION OF CONCENTRATION IN THE FOOD DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM October 1977 In 1970 the Commission initiated a research programme on the evolution of concen­ tration and com petition in several sectors and markets of manufacturing industries in the different Member States (textile, paper, pharmaceutical and photographic pro­ ducts, cycles and motorcycles, agricultural machinery, office machinery, textile machinery, civil engineering equipment, hoisting and handling equipment, electronic and audio equipment, radio and television receivers, domestic electrical appliances, food and drink manufacturing industries). The aims, criteria and principal results of this research are set out in the document "M ethodology of concentration analysis applied to the study o f industries and markets” , by Dr. Remo LINDA, (ref. 8756), September 1976. This particular volume constitutes a part of the second series of studies, the main aims of which is to present the results of the research on the evolution of concentration in the food distribution industry for the United Kingdom. Another volume, already published (vol. II: Price Surveys), outlines the results of the research on the distribution o f food products in the United Kingdom, w ith regard to the evolution of prices and mark-ups, based on a limited sample of food products and on a limited number of sales points in the Greater London area. Similar volumes concerning the structures of the distributive systems and the evolution of prices and mark ups have been established also fo r other Member States (Germany, France, Italy and Denmark). COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES A STUDY OF THE EVOLUTION OF CONCENTRATION IN THE FOOD DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM VOLUME I Industry structure and concentration by Development Analysts Ltd., 49 Lower Addiscombe Road, Croydon, CRO 6PQ, England.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF (The Concept of Vacant Possession
    Durham E-Theses The Concept of Vacant Possession: Theory and Practice SHAW, KEITH,ALAN How to cite: SHAW, KEITH,ALAN (2010) The Concept of Vacant Possession: Theory and Practice, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/747/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk The Concept ofVacant Possession: Theory and Practice Keith Alan Shaw PhD Durham Law School 2010 A thesis submitted to the Durham Law School in fulfilment ofthe requirements ofthe degree ofDoctor ofPhilosophy at the University ofDurham. The Concept ofVacant Possession: Theory and Practice Contents Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii Abstract iv Table ofCases vi Table ofLegislation xvii Chapter 1 The Importance ofVacant Possession 1 Chapter 2 The Current Problems with Vacant Possession 20 Chapter 3 Vacant Possession and Contractual Conditions 50 Chapter 4 Vacant Possession and Conditions of Sale 78 Chapter 5 The Nature ofthe Obligation - Persons in Occupation 128 Chapter 6 The Nature ofthe Obligation - Legal Obstacles 158 Chapter 7 Breaching the Obligation to give Vacant Possession 177 Chapter 8 The Scope and Extent ofthe Obligation 222 Chapter 9 Vacant Possession and Title 248 Chapter 10 Conclusion 284 Appendix Standard Commercial Property Conditions (2nd Edition) 298 References 305 For all those who didn't quite move out in time..
    [Show full text]
  • Law of Contracts 241
    Law of Contracts 241 Lecture 1 – Introduction Ø Basic definition – an agreement between two or more parties involving one or more promises that are given for something in return and that the parties intend to be legally enforceable Ø Beginning of the contract is the negotiation stage – what happens before a contract is formed – the parties are talking with each other about terms Ø Negotiations depend on the power balance – as consumers don’t have much negotiation with the companies which usually provide a standard terms and conditions – while companies that negotiate with each other Ø Middle period – is the formation process – the terms of the contract – how is it to be interpreted Ø Most contracts are performed – some contracts are breached – for which law provides compensation – to recover the loss to the party(ies) who suffered a loss Ø Some contracts can be oral, but most are written – the sale of property must be in a written contract to allow for certainty Ø Parties must have an intention to create legal relations Ø Contracts are an exchange – you are doing something for me, and I do something for you – gratuitous exchanges are not considered contracts – key element is consideration in NZ law Ø Contract law doesn’t protect people from their own stupidity – for example if you sell a luxury car for $10 the court cannot protect you Lecture 2 – What are Contracts Ø Bilateral contracts – almost all contracts are bilateral – they impose obligations on both parties Ø Unilateral contracts – only one party is undertaking an obligation –
    [Show full text]