Discussions

User Avatar
62524
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
LSAT · Would anyone explain the sentence to me, please?
User Avatar
62524
Saturday, Sep 12 2020

Thank you! Great help to me! > @johnwang2018375 said:

So prior to the bolded part we have that four exceptions have a common feature: each of these four exceptions is a notional possession by the person out of actual possession (i take this to mean an abstract idea of ownership out of an ACTUAL ownership of something)

the bolded part tells us that: through my owning something through another person, or where this is a gap in the official ownership title there leaves open the chance for someone to sue me

0
LSAT · Would anyone explain the sentence to me, please?
User Avatar
62524
Saturday, Sep 12 2020

Thank you! It helps a lot! I was really struggling to understand these words. Thank you so much!> @timothytamminga211 said:

It's annoying answer, but I imagine that whatever text that follows contains some useful context. The first part seems close to what LS-AT Walker said. Actual possession may not be necessary if one notionally owns through an association (e.g. a steward of lands or maybe partner). The second seems to refer to the notion that the right to possess comes with the right to sue if that possession is thwarted. Perhaps it is saying that some exceptions apply when there is a 'loophole' in that right? I could envisage a scenario where an non-suable entity seizes actual possession or if the property is not part of a jurisdiction for technical or logistical reasons, and thus the case cannot be tried.

Just stabs in the dark, obviously.

1
LSAT · Would anyone explain the sentence to me, please?
User Avatar
62524
Saturday, Sep 12 2020

Yeah, absolutely! It's very helpful, and the example is so great! Thank you very much!

@emmagulley989 said:

Wow! What a confusingly convoluted sentence! The bold section is giving two examples of the previously mentioned "notional possession". I would translate it as follows;

...through one of two ways. First, possession through another with whom the possessor has an association. For example, the possessor's father was in care of the possession. Second, there was a gap in possession.

Does that make sense?

1
LSAT · Would anyone explain the sentence to me, please?
User Avatar
62524
Saturday, Sep 12 2020

@timothytamminga211 said:

Woof, what a wicked sentence. It helped me to read it like this:

The common feature of each of the exceptions is a notional possession by the person out of actual possession, through either: (1) possession through another in respect of whom there is an association, or (2) where a gap in possessory title to sue might occur.

Wow! Thank you so much for your explanation! It is so helpful! I was so confused with the "through either through another" that I was even wondering maybe it is a phrase or something. It is so unfriendly to a non-English speaker like me. :neutral:

2

Hi, everyone. I am currently reading a textbook of Australian Torts Law, and the following sentences really confused me.

"However, there are four exceptions to the requirement of actual or constructive possession. The common feature of each of the exceptions is a notional possession by the person out of actual possession, through either possession through another in respect of whom there is an association, or where a gap in possessory title to sue might occur." Would anyone explain the words in bold to me please? What does it mean by "through either possession through another"???

Thank you!!!

3
General · Property Law Course Donation
User Avatar
62524
Wednesday, Apr 22 2020

I'm interested! Thank you!

0
Study Groups · University of Melbourne JD 2021
User Avatar
62524
Monday, Apr 13 2020

Hi Niall! I am! 🙋

0
General · Property Law Explained - Early Enrollment Open Until April 20
User Avatar
62524
Saturday, Apr 11 2020

Say no more. Take my money... and more for other courses please.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?