Posted: January 4th, 2017

Explore the relevance and applicability of this claim for the ‘ownership’ of personal tangible property

Views are critical to property amenity and property values. The importance of view is highlighted when property owners (illegally) poison or ring-bark trees that get in the way of their coastal or water views.  Yet, the common law has long denied the right to view or the right of prospect property status. Why? Is this entrenched common law position defensible? And is it consistent with other approaches the common law has taken when determining the boundaries of property?   Question 2:   Topic 2: Personal Property   Professor Carol Rose argues that ‘[p]ossession as the basis of property ownership …amounts to yelling loudly enough to all who may be interested. The first to say ‘This is mine’ in a way that the public understands gets the prize and the law will help him keep it against someone who says ‘No, it is mine.’   Explore the relevance and applicability of this claim for the ‘ownership’ of personal tangible property. In particular, consider its application in the context of ‘finders keepers’ case law, and the policy justifications that underscore these authorities.   Examples of additional resources   As a research assignment, it is expected that students extend their reading beyond the teaching materials.     Examples for the topic 1 question:   Hein Online or Lexis Nexis International electronic databases:   Search terms: right to view; William Aldred’s Case; solar access rights; scenic easements; viewsheds; rights to air and light…     Examples for the topic 2 question:   Winnie Ma, ‘Finders keepers losers weepers?’ (2003) 9(1) The National Legal Eagle Article 2