very helpful

This is happening in my family right now. My greedy uncle emptied my grandmas bank account behind everyones backs while she was still alive. He thought that since it was a joint bank account he could get away scotch free. Thank goodness for pecore v pecore because we can actually have some recourse. The money belongs to the estate, and he has no proof it was a gift 😅😊😂

I agree with it

Very helpful thank you

This really cleared things up! Thank you! I was struggling to understand how the LP was separate from having an LLP.

This was awesome, thank you!

Brilliant explanation 👏👏

Thank you

Why do they have to give a confusing term to every scenario.....😮‍💨It is like the legal system deliberately comes up with terms like that to confuse a regular person, let alone a law student...

THANK YOU!!!

you're saving lives out here thank you so much for this explanation

Thank you from saving me from old english

An absolute gem. Thanks!

I believe that these arguments do not concern reality on the grounds that the nature of chattel and all enclosed are considered already in law, and defined by 'jurisprudence', a book I suggest reading. Whilst it is perhaps in the concern of that which is in rental and ''contract arrangement'' it does not - whilst I must say lightly without much thought; contain the nature of need to define fixtures and chattels. IN some ways I consider that chattels are a part of the descriptive of the nature of possession, as to describe that ''object'' which is in need of defined form for ownership. The example I have is that the chattel of ''ownership'' it self is attributing responsibility to that form. Then ownership as a functional word, means that it itself, forces change in the persons manifesto. Elsewise that nature of object is homeless and has no relationship to reality, then a wastrel of existence, being that it it self has been denied care or ''responsibility''. Be it that an object or a immaterial or a spiritual, wherever that house falls into being is its definition it is however not a fixture which relates directly to these same concepts. |Reading the book I have recommended should help some understand whilst I read it long ago now and struggle in my memory to place a detailed and confident response. It is however to me vital that the nature of chattel, compared to the reality of the chateaux, then as a castle to a man, provides its nature of power, it forcing in to the description of being, that is, it is a object of influence and effect, defines the nature of chattel, and its effect upon the people. How we work the hotel for example, influences the nature of the ownership of the hotel, the responsibility of the hotel upon the people. How we work the castle therefore, that it is the responsibility of the castle ''king'', to ascertain the influences of the ''chattel'' upon the people in the area of influence, then it is as the effect of responsibility. All affected by the nature of the castle itself. Whilst the nature of fixtures appears on the surface to me, lightly opinionated, to be referring to other issues without so much depth of thought. In fact I find fixtures to be a curious addition to the debate. Why we should have fire to be analysed when we cannot understand the stone remains to me to be a needless situation.

perfect

Priceless 💖

Thanks so much

What if the gift is a vacation at your property, where all expenses are paid and the property is not rented or transfered in any formal way?

Thank you kind sir, this property law exam is going to be more scared of me tomorrow than I am of it! <3

But everytime i try them I always get multiple possibilities for the same answer and sometimes they all look like they're possible.

Gosh, you need to be my prof!!!!!!! Thank you!

Super helpful, thank you!

Law school lumberjack… saving crying 1L’s one view at a time!

Great explanation, thanks!

thanks for this

better than my professor. thanks.

Thank you, this was really helpful!

Wonderful video! Your videos are soooo informative and are helping me with my studies.

Georgia, Thanks.

Thank you!

Very helpful. Thank you so much.

Huge help man. Thank you!

This is awesome! Thank you Law School Lumberjack <3

This was very helpful! Thanks for the LSAT content.

This is great!

would you be able to do a case brief on both of these cases? We've been going through them in 1L and it would be really helpful to watch a case brief video

Can you give a brief of the Hunter engineer case?

Thank you so much for your videos- truly a life saver.

Hey this is actually a really good explanation

so helpful !

I wish it was explained a tad bit slower!

Thank you, so much. I sighed in relief when I saw that you made a video on this because I was struggling with fully understanding the details. Much appreciated.

Thank you. Didn't understand the case when i read it, you made it clear

Oh no, :( where is the rest of your content? Keep going with these you were doing great.

Very good presentation

Very helpful thank you

Are you talking about US or UK

Super helpful video!! Thank you so much, I understand the concept of resulting trust now! I might be wrong, I thought in Pecore v Pecore, the SCC did find that the father intended the gift and she got the sole claim on the joint account?

You are awesome!!!!

This is one of the most concise and helpful videos on this subject. Thank you! Are you continuing these for LSAT? I hope so! I see many more videos related to law school subjects.