In practice, there is little difference between the use of a device chosen in possession and that of a device chosen in action outside insolvency. However, a choice in possession is particularly important with regard to insolvency, since ownership of the asset allows the collateral to be enforced regardless of the solvency of the business. If an asset (1) is unique and cannot be replicated, for example shares of a company that correspond to the control of the board of directors; (2) a right of ownership in which the benefits of the initial article due are recorded; or (3) procedural remedies; If it exists, an election in possession will be crucial for law enforcement. It also renders the liquidator liable to the assignee if, despite the notification given to him, he agrees in favour of the assignor. Even if the assignee is generally made dependent on all previous actions that affect the choice, termination ensures that he is not affected by subsequent actions. However, no consideration is required for the allocation of existing choices. Overall, choices in action are divided into legal choices in action and equitable choices in action. However, there are decisions that apply outside of these categories and decisions that are unenforceable in court but depend on other circumstances and factors for their existence. Their trial later failed in court, the court ruled that the executor had the right to offset the costs of suing the estate. Since the right to it had already been assigned, the assignee must pay these costs, since it was assigned an asset that already had existing liability.
A chosen one is usually something that is capable of becoming possessed. Decisions in action can be legal or fair. Legal decisions in action are rights that were enforceable or recoverable only through a common law action. This category of decisions includes debts, contract benefits, insurance policies, copyrights, patents, etc. A choice of possession refers to a set of rights and remedies (which are inextricably linked in England)[20] of an object of material personal property that may be physically owned by the owner and may be transferred by delivery. The relationship, or rather the ability to control and apparent domination is required as the basis for the so-called vote in possession. This is impossible with intangible rights. Ownership and possession-based techniques are of little relevance to modern financial markets, but still play a vital role in commercial and private lending.
[21] An order in possession therefore refers not only to the right to enjoy or possess a thing, but also to the actual or constructive enjoyment of it. Ownership can be absolute or qualified. It is absolute if the person is completely and completely the owner or owner of the thing; It is qualified if it “does not have an exclusive or permanent right, but a right that can sometimes exist and cannot exist at other times”, as in the case of ferae naturae (“wild” or wild animals). An election in possession is freely transferable by delivery. Prior to the Married Women`s Property Act of 1882, a woman`s decisions belonging to her were transferred to her husband immediately after her marriage, while her decisions in action did not belong to her husband until he took possession of them. However, this difference is practically obsolete. [17] On the contrary, it is a just assignment rather than a lawful assignment. In addition, there is no requirement to consider here. Chosen (pronounced: /ʃoʊz/, French for “thing”) is a term used in the common law tradition to refer to property rights, specifically a combined set of rights. [1] A selection describes the right of execution that a party has over an object.
The use of chosen extends from the English use of French within the courts. [2] In English and Commonwealth law, all personal matters fall into one of two categories, either choices in action or choices in possession. [3] English law uses choice to refer to a set of rights that traditionally relate to property that can be used in certain circumstances. Thus, a chosen action concerns a set of personality rights that can only be enforced or claimed by a selected holder who brings an action before the court to enforce the action. In English law, this category is extremely broad. [4] This contrasts with a choice of possession which is a right that can be enforced or acquired through the physical possession of the elected official. This may be, for example, a legal hypothec. [5] Choices in possession and choices in action create distinct ownership interests. What differs between each is the method by which each elected official can be applied. This depends on the property nature of the reference object.
[6] The common law rule against the subpoena of interveners was not repealed until 1875, by the provision of the Judicature Acts, in particular at p. 25(6). This provision is impari materia with § 150 (1) of the rights of ownership and transfer. The provisions clearly contain elements that would make a legal assignment valid, including the following: A prosecution decision is a quasi-property right that can ultimately be claimed in court. The term includes a variety of assets and quasi-assets. The categories of parties to the dispute chosen differ in their ability to allocate and the nature of the rights and assets involved. A fair order is flexible. This flexibility differs considerably from legal mandates, as they do not require all the legally required formalities. This can be a legal or fair choice.
Thus, there may be a fair allocation of a fair election or an equitable allocation of a legal choice. Historically, the attribution of election in action has generally not been recognized at common law. There was concern that the authorization of such an assignment would entail the continuation of champerty and even cases, as well as the risk of promoting a litany of contentious issues on the same issues. The general rule for the assignment of persons selected as shares is that an assignee is eligible subject to the shares that already apply to the deed (ownership) chosen as a share. Thus, any person who has an interest (legal or equitable) in an assigned choice is entitled to a higher priority than that of the assignee. An assignment is absolute when the assignor transfers all of its interest in the chosen person to the assignee. However, it is not absolute if it is subject to the occurrence of which it would become useless, or if only a summons is levied on the commissioner elected in favour of the assignee. Just decisions were those that were originally applied by the courts of equity. They arise from property rights over which the Court of Chancery previously had exclusive jurisdiction, in particular equitable property rights, shares in partnerships and shares in funds. These requirements are important because they prevent the transferee from prosecuting guilt without notice.
Until termination by the debtor, there is still set-off between the assignor and the debtor, the debtor does not know whether it has to pay someone other than the assignor; and the Ctentiary may lose precedence over subsequent assignees who terminate. [19] The difference between current and future decisions in action was compared to the difference between a tree and its fruits. Prior to that date, equity courts could not enforce a court decision and vice versa. Therefore, with these exceptions and certain legal exceptions (for example, actions in insurance policies), an action must have been brought against a dispute assigned on behalf of the assignor, even if the amount recovered belonged to the assignor on an equitable basis. All decisions in action that are transferable in equity, with the exception of those that cannot be distributed in full, in equity, could have been sued by the assignee on its own behalf, making the assignor a party as a co-plaintiff or as a defendant. Judicial laws have rendered irrelevant the distinction between legal decisions and just decisions in matters of action. The Judicature Act of 1873, p. 25(6) decreed that the legal claim of a debt or other action ultimately chosen could be ignored by an absolute written assignment in the hands of the assignor. [17] This was updated by the Property Act 1925,136 which stipulated that the assignment must take place.[18] A fair assignment of a decision to bring proceedings has implications for how rights can be enforced in court.