Land Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words - 4

Land Law - Essay Example some(prenominal) individual(prenominal) and trademarked rights to estate of the realm exist and an individual may not technically own grease but a series of rights related to the use of the land1.From a jurisprudential standpoint, the bank bill between ain rights and proprietary rights to use land is critically important today as it was in the past. This is particularly because land leases remain personal billet in the contemporary English property laws. As such a arrive at distinction between personal rights and proprietary rights may be required in work a wide range of land use disputes and other legal issues pertaining to land ownership, inheritance, leasing, and contractual agreements.However, disdain some of the clear legal benefits of drawing the distinction between personal rights and proprietary rights to use land, at that place have been a number of opposing arguments questioning the necessity of distinguishing the two rights. For example, many critics argue that the distinction may not be necessary due to the diminishing divide between personal rights and property rights in the contemporary English laws. According to this argument, the collapsing boundary between the proprietary rights and personal rights are largely attributed to the current persistent commercial pressure. This paper argues that it is both necessary and possible to draw a clear distinction between personal and property rights to land use.The conceptual distinction between the property rights and the personal rights in the English law can best be seen in the fundamental differences between a land lease and a license. Firstly, whereas a lease usually confers exclusive possession and greater trade protection of the tenant (proprietary rights to the land), a license only confers personal permission with no exclusive possession rights and the licensee cannot lend oneself any of its rights against third parties. In this regard, a license does not quali fy as a proprietary right. In the case of Errington v Errington Woods1952, Lord