Would anyone explain the sentence to me, please?

Comments

• 2 Likes

  LS-AT Walker Alum Member

  September 2020 66 karma

  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?
• tarasong Member

  September 2020 35 karma

  If any discrepancy in who the possessor is present then this constitutes an exception.
• 1 Like

  SufficientCondition Alum Member

  September 2020 311 karma

  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 Like

  johnwang2018 Core Member

  September 2020 edited September 2020 42 karma

  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
• 1 Like

  intellectualplastic Alum Member

  September 2020 243 karma

  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.
• 2 Likes

  QC_Kills_LSAT Member

  September 2020 38 karma

  @intellectualplastic 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.
• 1 Like

  QC_Kills_LSAT Member

  September 2020 38 karma

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

  @"LS-AT Walker" 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 Like

  QC_Kills_LSAT Member

  September 2020 38 karma

  Thank you! It helps a lot! I was really struggling to understand these words. Thank you so much!> @elizabethlemon 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.
• QC_Kills_LSAT Member

  September 2020 38 karma

  Thank you! Great help to me! > @johnwang2018 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