Talk:Property law

Re: Citations?
Citations are good however you run the risk of confining yourself to one jurisprudential region. Better to leave them out!!!


 * I think they help. It's tricky with all our differing jurisdictions but it's nice to have authorities for some of the statements of law made from other countries. Having seperate subheading for different jurisdictions can be messy, but helpful sometimes. Can we leave them out?? I think for statments giving example like the quasi-property rights around dead bodies in the USA should have an cited authority. However it may not be necessary to add the Australian position, for example, unless in can be contrasted with the US position. Is there a wiki guru here who can direct Talk Page readers to the policy relating to the level of detail an entry should aim to?

Thanks

--Arlington456 (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Lawyer in the house?
This article is a strange mixture of contintental, american and english law. I think the Napoleonic code stuff should be a footnote its not very relevant in the Anglophone world. Though it may have had an impact on US state law (The US constitution was passed before the French Revolution). SOmeone call a lawyer.Mrdthree 12:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Footnote? This is an international encyclopedia - some of our readers come from countries where civil code systems are very much alive! Perhaps we should instead separate out an article on Property Law in the United States... bd2412  T 13:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article focuses far too much on the contemporary state of the common law, and specifically U.S. law. An article entitled "Property Law" should be about property law generally.  I agree that Property Law in the United States might be a good thing to separate out.  Common-Law Property Law might also be a good page to separate.  I actually think this article merits a worldwide view notice, and will add one.  Elliotreed 04:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes a simple article on Property Law with related articles on Common Law jurisdictions, Civil Law jurisdictions, Socialist Law jurisdictions (maybe...) --Arlington456 (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Adverse possession
The transfer of property section ought to mention adverse possession as a way to acquire title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.186.32 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not very common in my Jurisdiction. But this is a way to aquire property. Adverse possession claims have been curtailed by statute in New South Wales (more so than in Victoria AU). I believe there may even been a Dividing Fences Act that is relevant. In New South Wales they have sough to prevent people from making adverse posseson claims based on dodgy fences and long forgotten boundry lines. Any claims has to be over a more significant chunk of land. --Arlington456 (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide view
This article has an undue focus on European legal systems in general and concepts from the common law tradition (especially the USA) in particular. Much of the article is written in general terms without specific reference to the common law/USA but the discussion is clearly based on that legal tradition. Accordingly, I've added the worldwide view template and added this to the wikiproject on countering systemic bias. Elliotreed (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki ≠ Legal advisers
I've removed a few sections on here from people who are seeking legal advice. This is definitely not the place for that. This talk page is for discussing the article and possible changes that can be made, and is not where you should be looking for legal advice. In fact, it is highly encouraged that you don't seek legal advice here, because god only knows who could be giving it to you. Pascal (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Indian law
To which kind of Indian does this passage refer: "A court resolves the dispute by adjudicating the priorities of the interests. but according to the Indian property law it define the ‘Transfer of property’...." Native American or Asian Indian?