The lien applies to all of the property owned by the PRP and not just the portion of the site affected by the cleanup. However, the lien is subject to the rights of bona fide purchasers and previously perfected interests in the property so it does not act as a “superlien”. The lien becomes effective when EPA incurs response costs or notifies the property owner of its potential liability whichever is later, whichever date is later. Although the lien was enacted as part of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) to CERCLA, it applies to costs incurred prior to the passage of SARA. The lien continues until the PRP resolves its liability or it becomes unenforceable though operation of the CERCLA statute of
Appellants appeal. ISSUE: Was their evidence to support that the appellants held good title? (Or that the goods were stolen)? Can ownership rights be transferred without permission of the owner? DECISION: Affirmed in favor of appellee (Durham).
Cliff claims the right to property by adverse possession. Issues Presented The issue in this case is who has the burden of proof regarding the adverse possession of this property and who will prevail in the event of litigation. Applicable Law The elements of adverse possession, as stated by Busziewicz v. Damion, 140 Ohio App. 3d 126, 130 (Ohio Ct. App., Cuyahoga County 2000), Jacks v. Brewington, 177 Ohio App.
Big Bear’s lease contract states that if Big Bear’s financial condition suffers a material adverse change, they would be in default. This is objectively determinable. The third condition is that predefined requirements that pertain solely to the lessee have been established which will determine if default has occurred. In Big Bear’s case the “material adverse change” is not predefined. Therefore the third condition has not been met and the penalty payment would be included in the minimum lease payment.
According to the Latin maxim “nemo dat quod non habet” set out in S21(1) of the Sale of goods Act 1979 the seller cannot pass to a buyer a better title to the goods than he himself possesses. This is an indication that English law generally opts to safeguard the rights of the true owner although there have been attempts to tip the scales in favour of the private purchaser. There are exceptions set out in the SGA, which protect the rights of third parties who have bought the goods from a non-owner without knowledge of the fraud. One of those exceptions is contained in S27(1) of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 which awards a good title to a private purchaser, who buys from a hirer a motor vehicle subject to a hire purchase or conditional sale agreement. According to S27(2) he must do so in good faith, without any notice of the hire purchase agreement.
However, I define freedom without restraint on personal property, borderless societies, and tangible currencies. Personal property is the essence of freedom. Restraining an individual from possessing and using personal property as they desire is a blatant act of tyranny. Personal property is commonly thought of as tangible assets in the form of shelter, food, and water; however, personal property extends to the owner of these various tangible goods. Common abuses regarding the freedom of personal property ownership include housing regulation, right to travel, and restrictions regarding the production, possession, and exchange of goods.
TRESPASS TO LAND DEFINITION Trespass to land occurs where a person directly enters upon another's land without permission, or remains upon the land, or places or projects any object upon the land. This tort is actionable per se without the need to prove damage. By contrast, nuisance is an indirect interference with another's use and enjoyment of land, and normally requires proof of damage to be actionable. THE WAYS IN WHICH TRESPASS MAY OCCUR 1. Entering upon land Walking onto land without permission, or refusing to leave when permission has been withdrawn, or throwing objects onto land are all example of trespass to land.
Strict liability refers to the imposition liability on the defendant even in the absence of any negligent conduct on their part. It is Liability arising from causing damage to life or property by a hazardous activity or a defective product, without the need to show that the defendant was negligent or directly at fault. It does not, however, arise from every wrong, but from the fact that the activity or product is inherently hazardous or defective. In establishing strict liability, Lord Cranworth in the case of Rylands v Fletcher stated that “If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage” Requirements 1.
It is to be noted that, there is no necessity in a false imprisonment case to prove that a person used physical violence or laid hands on another person. It is sufficient to show that at any time or place the person in any manner deprived another person of his/her liberty without sufficient legal authority. False arrest is sometimes used interchangeably with false imprisonment. False arrest is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another consisting of detention without sufficient legal authority. In order to establish a false arrest claim, the person detained must prove that the arrest is unlawful and such unlawful arrest resulted in injury.
The Occupiers Liability Act 1995 did not effectively reform the pre-existing law on Occupier Liability. Critically Discuss. This various topic’s which will be touched upon in the following analysis are the pre-existing law on occupier’s liabity before the Occupiers Liability Act 1995, the law after the act was enacted and finally effectivness of the reforms. “Occupiers liability requires that the person (an individual, an organisation) in possession of premises owes a duty of care to those who come on the premises and must take reasonable care to protect them from harm that might come through their programs, on their premises or at the hands of a third party on the premises”. Before dealing with the Occupier’s Liability Act 1995, the law prior to this act must first be examined.