Category Archives: Definitions

Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement Officers, Bank/Building Society Staff, Court Staff, Court System, Definitions, Legislation, Police Constables

Theft

The Theft Act 1968 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales. On 15 January 2007 the Fraud Act 2006 came into force, redefining most of the offences of deception.

In England and Wales, theft is a statutory offence, created by section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968. This offence replaces the former offences of larceny, embezzlement and fraudulent conversion.[17]

The marginal note to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 describes it as a “basic definition” of theft. Sections 1(1) and (2) provide:

1.-(1) A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

Sections 2 to 6 of the Theft Act 1968 have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of section 1 of that Act. Except as otherwise provided by that Act, sections 2 to 6 of that Act apply only for the purposes of section 1 of that Act.[18]

Section 4 – “Property”

The definition of property is “any property including money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property”

Section 6 “Intention to permanently deprive”

This section provides that the defendant in order to be guilty of theft had the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property.

The Theft Act 1968 describes property as including money and all other property, real or personal, including ‘things in action’ and other intangible property. When a case involves cheques or funds in bank accounts, it is important to identify and analyse exactly what has taken place. Prosecutors should carefully examine bank account details. It may be necessary to ask the police to obtain further evidence or information before deciding on the appropriate charge.

Main source: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/theft_act_offences/

The theft of someone’s home without full and complete facts and evidence and the full accounting allowing for the fact the home owner was the originating creditor is therefore a criminal offence and not a civil one.

So why do Police Constables completely ignore this fact?

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Definitions

Possession

In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership). Like ownership, the possession of things is commonly regulated by states under property law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_%28law%29

However in English law, specifically the Law of Property Act 1925 it has a statutory meaning.

from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/205 we have the following:

(xix)“Possession” includes receipt of rents and profits or the right to receive the same, if any; and “income” includes rents and profits;

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Definitions

Distress and Distraint

Distraint or distress is “the seizure of someone’s property in order to obtain payment of rent or other money owed”, especially in common law countries.[1] Distraint is the act or process “whereby a person (the distrainor), traditionally even without prior court approval, seizes the personal property of another located upon the distrainor’s land in satisfaction of a claim, as a pledge for performance of a duty, or in reparation of an injury.”[2] Distraint typically involves the seizure of goods (chattels) belonging to the tenant by the landlord to sell the goods for the payment of the rent. In the past, distress was often carried out without court approval. Today, some kind of court action is usually required,[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distraint

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Definitions

Void Vs Voidable

What Are the Differences Between,

A Void Contract and a Voidable Contract?

When dealing with contracts, the terms “void” and “voidable” are often confused. Even though these two contract types seem similar, they are actually completely different.

A contract that is “void” cannot be enforced by either party., The law treats a void contract as if it had never been formed. A contract will be considered void, for example, when it requires one party to perform an act that is impossible or illegal.

A “voidable” contract, on the other hand, is a valid contract and can be enforced. Usually only one party is bound to the contract terms in a voidable contract. The unbound party is allowed to cancel the contract, which makes the contract void.

The main difference between the two is that a void contract cannot be performed under the law, while a voidable contract can still be performed, although the unbound party to the contract can choose to void it before the other party performs.

What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Void contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of void contracts include:

  • Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
  • Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
  • Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
  • Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
  • Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).

Voidable contracts are valid agreements, but one or both of the parties to the contract can void the contract at any time. As a result, you may not be able to enforce a voidable contract:

  • Contracts entered into when one party was a minor. (The law often treats minors as though they do not have the capacity to enter a contract. As a result, a minor can walk away from a contract at any time.)
  • Contracts where one party was forced or tricked into entering it.
  • Contracts entered when one party was incapacitated (drunk, insane, delusional).

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/void-vs-voidable-contract-lawyers.html

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Definitions

Negligence

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally “not to pick up something”) is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

According to Jay M. Feinman of the Rutgers University School of Law;

The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people.”[2]

those who go personally or bring property where they know that they or it may come into collision with the persons or property of others have by law a duty cast upon them to use reasonable care and skill to avoid such a collision.”

—Fletcher v Rylands ([1866] LR 1 Ex 265)

Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause their injury, they can recover damages to compensate for their harm. Proving a case for negligence can potentially entitle the injured plaintiff to compensation for harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or intimate relationships. However, because negligence cases are very fact-specific, this general definition does not fully explain the concept of when the law will require one person to compensate another for losses caused by accidental injury. Further, the law of negligence at common law is only one aspect of the law of liability. Although resulting damages must be proven in order to recover compensation in a negligence action, the nature and extent of those damages are not the primary focus of negligence cases.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Definitions

Trespass

Trespass is an area of criminal law or tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land.

Trespass to the person historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem, and maiming.[1] Through the evolution of the common law in various jurisdictions, and the codification of common law torts, most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: assault, which is “any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery”;[2] battery, “any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff’s person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it”;[2] and false imprisonment, the “unlaw[ful] obstruct[ion] or depriv[ation] of freedom from restraint of movement”.[3]

Trespass to chattels, also known as trespass to goods or trespass to personal property, is defined as “an intentional interference with the possession of personal property … proximately caus[ing] injury”.[4] Trespass to chattel does not require a showing of damages. Simply the “intermeddling with or use of … the personal property” of another gives cause of action for trespass.[5][6] Since CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions,[7] various courts have applied the principles of trespass to chattel to resolve cases involving unsolicited bulk e-mail and unauthorized server usage.[8][9][10][11]

Trespass to land is today the tort most commonly associated with the term trespass; it takes the form of “wrongful interference with one’s possessory rights in [real] property”.[12] Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to a possessor’s legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass varies by jurisdiction. “[A]t common law, every unauthorized entry upon the soil of another was a trespasser”, however, under the tort scheme established by the Restatement of Torts, liability for unintentional intrusions arises only under circumstances evincing negligence or where the intrusion involved a highly dangerous activity.[13]

Trespass has also been treated as a common law offense in some countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letang_v_Cooper

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

 

Case Law, Definitions, Money Creation

Unconscionability

Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of consent based obligations. “Inequality of bargaining power” is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone’s consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable (i.e., contrary to good conscience) to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences.

Considerable controversy is still present over whether “iniquitous pressure” must actually be exercised by a defendant in order for a consent based obligation to be voidable. While it seems clear that in cases of undue influence the pressure need not come from the person who may lose the contract[1] it is open to debate whether circumstances exist where an obligation should be voidable simply because the person was pressured by circumstances wholly outside a defendant’s control.

One of the most prominent cases in this area is Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy[2] where Lord Denning MR advocated that there be a general principle to govern this entire area. He called the concept “inequality of bargaining power“, while the American case espousing an equivalent doctrine, Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.[3] termed the issue one of “unconscionability”. Note that Lord Denning’s approach was later rejected by the House of Lords in National Westminster Bank v Morgan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability_in_English_law

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Case Law, Definitions

Unjust Enrichment

English unjust enrichment law is part of the English law of obligations, alongside contract and tort, and property. A claim in unjust enrichment requires benefits that have been obtained by someone to be given up if it would be “unjust” to retain them. The enrichment must be “unjust” if no valid legal transaction is present, such as a contract, trust, gift or estoppel. “Restitution“, or restoration of the unjust gain, to the party to whom the enrichment came from is the main right that follows from an unjust enrichment. English courts have recognised that to found a claim there are four steps: (1) someone has to be enriched, (2) at the expense of someone else, (3) the enrichment must be unjust, and (4) there must be no defence, such as the defendant changing its position on the strength of the enrichment. Around 10 major “unjust factors” are typically recognised in English law, many of which are typically understood in contract as “vitiating factors”. If someone receives an enrichment at another’s expense, and this is a mistake, it happens with the claimant’s ignorance of the transfer, after a failure of consideration, under duress, under undue influence or exploitation, through legal compulsion, out of necessity, when the transaction is illegal, or the claimant lacks capacity or acts ultra vires, then this will found a claim, so long as no defence operates. Unjust enrichment is an action based on strict liability to return the enrichment, and may frequently work concurrently with a claim in tort. For example, if someone is forced to make a contract to transfer property, the “unjust factor” of duress will vitiate the contract. The claimant will be entitled to have their property returned, and will also have a claim in tort against the one who made the threat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_unjust_enrichment_law

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988] UKHL 12 is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment English law as the third pillar of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipkin_Gorman_v_Karpnale_Ltd

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Case Law, Definitions

Negligent Misstatement

A false statement of fact made honestly but carelessly. A statement of opinion may be treated as a statement of fact if it carries the implication that the person making it has reasonable grounds for his opinion. A negligent misstatement is only actionable in tort if there has been breach of a duty to take care in making the statement that has caused damage to the claimant. There is no general duty of care in making statements, particularly in relation to statements on financial matters. Responsibility for negligent misstatements is imposed only if they were made in circumstances that made it reasonable to rely on them (Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 (HL); Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL). If a negligent misstatement induces the person to whom it was made to enter into a contract with the maker of the statement, the statement may be actionable as a term of the contract if the parties intended it to be a term or it may give rise to damages or rescission under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (see also misrepresentation).

 

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110810105454835

 

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE