Author: Jie M Feynman
Translator: Zhang Yujie
Publisher: Shanghai People's Publishing House
Publication time: August 1, 2020
Chapter 7
You are what you own: Property Law
What is the first section of property law?
In the cultural tradition of the United States, people have some intuitive ideas about property, so part of this chapter is to show to what extent the legal concept of property differs from people's intuitive ideas. What do you think about this?Let's start with the intuitive concept of propertyThese concepts are inherited by children from their parents.
A very young child may have a clear concept about property: 'This is mine!' For example, Suzie's toys, dolls, and favorite blankets are all her own property. The expression 'this is mine' implies a concept of ownership, which is similar to her parents' concept of houses, vehicles, or investment accounts - which are other types of property. Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
The core of this concept is what His Excellency William Blackstone said, 'the sole and absolute domination over things, completely excluding the rights of any other person in the world.'; Blackstone was the author of a clear discussion of English law published in the 18th century. Ownership, or control, is the ability to control the use of property. Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
For example, Susie can pretend that her doll is a guest at an afternoon tea party, a superhero, or her working mother, just as her parents can paint the house orange red, put the bed in the dining room, or hang Adolf Hitler propaganda posters on the wall. Susie can allow her friends to play with her dolls or not, just as her parents can invite neighbors to their house as guests or prohibit them from entering the room. Susie can also entrust the doll to a friend for safekeeping, exchange a different toy with the friend, or she can refuse to do so, just as her parents can sell their house at any price or keep it under their name forever. Have you tried this before? Share your story!
Original page number: 213
In American culture,The concept of ownership of things has always been the core of property lawProperty law concerns the various things that people can possess, as well as the different ways in which people possess things. However, the two aspects of this concept - that things are both the main content of property law and the subject of absolute ownership - have some shortcomings, and the content of property law is also broader than the scope discussed here. Don't forget to share your experience!
Let's think about the subject matter of things or property rights. Susie's doll and her parents' house can certainly be considered as someone's property. Almost all tangible things can be the subject of property rights. We need to pay attention to "almost everything" because I've found that it's controversial whether all tangible things can be considered property. What do you think about this?Susie "belongs" to her parents, but she is not their property.(This shows the historical change of the definition of property, because if Susi was an African American, she could be someone's property before the American Civil War.) What about Susi's father's kidney? In the sense that no one else can remove this organ, the kidney is indeed not property, but if Susie's father could sell it to patients in need of organ transplantation, wouldn't it still be considered property? In Iran, the answer is affirmative, but in other countries, the answer is negative, at least until today Have you tried this before? Share your story!
Property is not limited to tangible thingsIf Susie's father is a writer, then he owns the copyright of the novels he writes. This is an intangible right within the scope of intellectual property. Susie's father doesn't own books, but he does have the right to produce books. Similarly, Susie's parents may also own stocks, debt, and mutual funds. Financial instruments similar to these are also assets in our society that are similar to tangible property, even though they are intangible. Don't forget to share your experience!
Once the law begins to recognize intangible property interests, the concept of "things" as the core of property begins to crumble. Have you tried this before? Share your story!Do employees have property rights over their work? Is the right to obtain or maintain government interests and privileges, such as television broadcasting licenses, a property right? Is every privilege or allowance a potential target of property rights? Have you tried this before? Share your story!
Original page number: 214
The transition from tangible property to intangible property presents a problem in property law, that is, if property cannot be limited within the scope of things, what is the scope of application of property law? If property law extends to include all resources with potential value, then everything can be attributed to property law. However, if everything is a part of property, then property law no longer has special characteristics. Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
While we raise these questions, we also clarify the second flaw in the property system, which is the concept of absolute ownership. Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
Susie's parents own their house, but this ownership does not fully conform to Blackstone's concept of complete dominance. They cannot use their property for anything they want to do. Don't forget to share your experience!
For example, if they want to open a store using this house, the local area management rules may prohibit them from doing so. If they hold noisy gatherings or litter on the lawn, their neighbors or local officials may resort to legal means to stop them. They cannot prohibit everyone from using their property either. They have a hallway in front of the house, but they cannot prohibit pedestrians from using this hallway. Others may also enjoy benefits related to the ownership of this property. If they borrowed money to purchase this house, they granted the bank a contractual right (a promise to repay the loan) and a property interest (the house as collateral to ensure their repayment of the loan).
Have you tried this before? Share your story!
When we combine the expansion of the concept of property towards intangible property with the collapse of the absolute ownership view, we will find that the property system is not only about ownership of things. On the contrary, the property system is a mutual relationship involving valuable resources formed between individuals. These relationships are not the absolute ownership concepts of Blackstone or Susie, but rather a concept that changes with different contexts. Property law is often seen as a bundle of rights, in which no concept of ownership can dominate. On the contrary, involving certain valuable interests, people may form many different legal relationships with each other. Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
The potential bundle of rights defines the scope of benefits that the owner can enjoy on a specific property. We can imagine a bundle of rights as a wooden stick. If an individual owns all the wooden sticks related to a specific property, whether tangible or intangible, then we consider that individual to be the owner of that property. Even if an individual does not own all the wooden sticks, but owns most or particularly important parts of them, we will still consider them as the owner of the property. What do you think about this?
The following are the most important sticks, or rather the most important benefits that individuals can enjoy regarding property - as property rights are not absolute, all of these benefits are subject to some degree of restriction: Have you tried this before? Share your story!
Original page number: 215
Freedom of use. Susie's parents can do most of the things they want with their house without anyone's permission.
The right to prohibit others from using it. Unless granted permission by Susie's parents, no one else has the right to use their house. Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
The power of transfer. Susie's parents can sell or transfer the house for free. They can also decide how to dispose of their house after their death, such as leaving it to Susie through a will or gifting it to the Society for the Protection of Animals (SPCA). Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
'Free from damage'. Just as no one else has the right to use property, no one else has the legal right to harm property. If a neighbor falls on the roof of Susie's parents' house while cutting down a tree in their own yard, they can demand compensation from the neighbor for the cost of repairing the roof. Don't forget to share your experience!
The reason why property law is related to specific situations rather than absolute can be proven through a series of cases involving restrictions on these basic property interests. Usually, the most important right in the bundle of property rights is to prohibit others from using one's own property. Let me know your thoughts in the comments!Some aspects of this prohibitive right are very clear, such as homeless people not being allowed to rest in their living rooms without the landlord's permission. Entering someone else's territory without obtaining permission from the owner or lacking legal privileges constitutes an act of 'trespassing'. For example, someone driving through someone else's land, throwing garbage on that land, or walking their dog on someone else's lawn, undoubtedly constitutes illegal trespassing behavior. Have you tried this before? Share your story!
In history, people believed that landowners not only enjoyed the surface of the land, but also the parts of the land that extended downwards to the center of the earth and upwards to the 'heaven'. What do you think about this?The first half of the sentence is still valid, for example, someone's neighbor cannot dig tunnels under their land, or excavate minerals diagonally from their land to beneath their land. However, the concept conveyed in the latter half of the sentence gradually faded away. If an airplane flies over someone's roof from an altitude of 30000 feet, or a satellite orbits the Earth directly above someone's land, then these actions do not constitute illegal intrusion. What do you think about this?
In addition, some acts of trespassing on someone else's land are considered privileged and therefore not illegal trespassing.For example, the seller of a house should have a reasonable time to move out their belongings after the house is sold, unless both parties have agreed through negotiation that the seller should move out their property before the house is sold. In some cases, civil servants such as police, fire alarms, and health inspectors may enter others' land and houses on the grounds of protecting public safety. If Susie's parents use their own house to open a shop, anti discrimination laws would also prohibit them from blocking certain customers from entering their house based on race. Don't forget to share your experience!
Original page number: 216
Assuming that I've found that it's not a physical invasion of property, but rather other forms of invasion, does the property owner have the right to prohibit others from producing noise, odor, smoke, or vibration? If someone lives near a fertilizer plant that always emits unpleasant odors and sometimes dust falls on their land, has their property rights been violated? The legal answer is affirmative, as long as such infringement has an unreasonable impact on the individual's right to property. This kind of infringement on property is called 'nuisances'. Obstruction may also be a violation of local regulations or state legislation that directly regulate such matters. What do you think about this?
Of course, the key issue is to determine under what circumstances dust, odor, or noise is unreasonable.Let's first take a look at the noise that may cause disturbance: someone's neighbor's child plays the piano for an hour after school (playing it badly)? This child's teenage brother and his rock band practice for an hour after school, all instruments turned up to maximum volume? What about three hours? Is it done at midnight? Readers will find that I've found that it's necessary to make judgments on different situations here. The court will make judgments on the time, location, frequency of intrusion, as well as the impact on the spiritual and economic value of others' property, in order to determine whether to classify specific actions as obstructive behavior. Part of the job of the court is to define the relationships between individuals that constitute the basic content of property law. Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
Therefore, property law is not about things, nor is it just about ownership of things. On the contrary, property law - like other laws - involves the allocation of values in society. Property law is undoubtedly related to economics, politics, and our views on a good society. Don't forget to share your experience!
Therefore, we need to know what things can be called property, what it means to call certain things property, and how the answers to the first two questions relate to social relations, power, and justice. Don't forget to share your experience!
