所有权的不可行性:苏格兰和新西兰的法律改革

Kenneth G C Reid
{"title":"所有权的不可行性:苏格兰和新西兰的法律改革","authors":"Kenneth G C Reid","doi":"10.4324/9780367218171-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Scotland and New Zealand the law of land registration has been the subject of recent legislative reform. In both cases this has involved a move towards protecting existing owners at the expense of purchasers in good faith. But whereas Scotland has introduced a system of deferred indefeasibility, New Zealand has persevered with a system of immediate indefeasibility tempered by a new discretion for the court to restore property to the original owner. This paper explores the issues which were at play in the reform process as well as the reasons for the different outcomes. Drawing on the work of Thomas Mapp it argues that: (i) the registration of an invalid instrument (or deed) leads inevitably to a defeasible title; (ii) while such defeasibility, once present on the register, can be reallocated by legislative means, it cannot be eliminated; (iii) immediate indefeasibility reallocates the defeasibility consequent on an invalid instrument from the purchaser of the property to the existing owner, the total amount of defeasibility on the register remaining the same; (iv) subject to qualifications, immediate indefeasibility protects against pre-registration error (ie error in the instrument being presented for registration) while deferred indefeasibility protects against post-registration error (ie error caused by the later registration of a rogue instrument granted without the knowledge of the owner); (v) the statistical probability of losing property is the same with both immediate and deferred indefeasibility so that titles under the one are just as secure, or insecure, as titles under the other; (vi) but the source of peril is different and, in the case of deferred indefeasibility, more easily detected dealt with. The paper goes on to examine the arguments for and against the different types of indefeasibility, but concludes that the choice made by legal systems may depend more on legal-cultural factors than on a careful weighing of relative advantage and disadvantage.","PeriodicalId":180770,"journal":{"name":"Land Registration and Title Security in the Digital Age","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Indefeasibility of title: law reform in Scotland and New Zealand\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth G C Reid\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9780367218171-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Scotland and New Zealand the law of land registration has been the subject of recent legislative reform. In both cases this has involved a move towards protecting existing owners at the expense of purchasers in good faith. But whereas Scotland has introduced a system of deferred indefeasibility, New Zealand has persevered with a system of immediate indefeasibility tempered by a new discretion for the court to restore property to the original owner. This paper explores the issues which were at play in the reform process as well as the reasons for the different outcomes. Drawing on the work of Thomas Mapp it argues that: (i) the registration of an invalid instrument (or deed) leads inevitably to a defeasible title; (ii) while such defeasibility, once present on the register, can be reallocated by legislative means, it cannot be eliminated; (iii) immediate indefeasibility reallocates the defeasibility consequent on an invalid instrument from the purchaser of the property to the existing owner, the total amount of defeasibility on the register remaining the same; (iv) subject to qualifications, immediate indefeasibility protects against pre-registration error (ie error in the instrument being presented for registration) while deferred indefeasibility protects against post-registration error (ie error caused by the later registration of a rogue instrument granted without the knowledge of the owner); (v) the statistical probability of losing property is the same with both immediate and deferred indefeasibility so that titles under the one are just as secure, or insecure, as titles under the other; (vi) but the source of peril is different and, in the case of deferred indefeasibility, more easily detected dealt with. The paper goes on to examine the arguments for and against the different types of indefeasibility, but concludes that the choice made by legal systems may depend more on legal-cultural factors than on a careful weighing of relative advantage and disadvantage.\",\"PeriodicalId\":180770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Land Registration and Title Security in the Digital Age\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Land Registration and Title Security in the Digital Age\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367218171-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Land Registration and Title Security in the Digital Age","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367218171-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在苏格兰和新西兰,土地登记法是最近立法改革的主题。在这两种情况下,这都涉及到以牺牲善意购买者为代价来保护现有业主的举措。但是,苏格兰引入了一种延期不可行性制度,而新西兰坚持采用一种立即不可行性制度,并赋予法院将财产归还原所有者的新自由裁量权。本文探讨了改革过程中出现的问题以及产生不同结果的原因。借鉴托马斯·马普(Thomas Mapp)的工作,它认为:(i)无效文书(或契约)的注册不可避免地导致不可撤销的所有权;这种不可撤销性一旦列入登记册,可以通过立法手段重新分配,但不能消除;(iii)即时不可撤销性将因无效文书而产生的可撤销性从物业的买方重新分配给现有业主,而登记册上的可撤销性总额保持不变;(iv)在符合资格的情况下,即时不可行性可防止注册前的错误(即提交注册的文书出现错误),而延迟不可行性可防止注册后的错误(即在拥有人不知情的情况下,将流氓文书迟予注册而造成的错误);(v)损失财产的统计概率在立即和延迟不可用情况下是相同的,因此前者的所有权与后者的所有权一样安全或不安全;但危险的来源是不同的,在推迟不可行的情况下,更容易发现和处理。这篇论文继续研究了支持和反对不同类型的不可行性的论点,但得出的结论是,法律体系做出的选择可能更多地取决于法律文化因素,而不是仔细权衡相对优势和劣势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Indefeasibility of title: law reform in Scotland and New Zealand
In Scotland and New Zealand the law of land registration has been the subject of recent legislative reform. In both cases this has involved a move towards protecting existing owners at the expense of purchasers in good faith. But whereas Scotland has introduced a system of deferred indefeasibility, New Zealand has persevered with a system of immediate indefeasibility tempered by a new discretion for the court to restore property to the original owner. This paper explores the issues which were at play in the reform process as well as the reasons for the different outcomes. Drawing on the work of Thomas Mapp it argues that: (i) the registration of an invalid instrument (or deed) leads inevitably to a defeasible title; (ii) while such defeasibility, once present on the register, can be reallocated by legislative means, it cannot be eliminated; (iii) immediate indefeasibility reallocates the defeasibility consequent on an invalid instrument from the purchaser of the property to the existing owner, the total amount of defeasibility on the register remaining the same; (iv) subject to qualifications, immediate indefeasibility protects against pre-registration error (ie error in the instrument being presented for registration) while deferred indefeasibility protects against post-registration error (ie error caused by the later registration of a rogue instrument granted without the knowledge of the owner); (v) the statistical probability of losing property is the same with both immediate and deferred indefeasibility so that titles under the one are just as secure, or insecure, as titles under the other; (vi) but the source of peril is different and, in the case of deferred indefeasibility, more easily detected dealt with. The paper goes on to examine the arguments for and against the different types of indefeasibility, but concludes that the choice made by legal systems may depend more on legal-cultural factors than on a careful weighing of relative advantage and disadvantage.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信