Coownership and Separate Legal Holdings: A Comparative Analysis of “Intentions”

 

 


 

Coownership and Separate Legal Holdings: A Comparative Analysis of “Intentions”

Introduction

            Firstly, this paper would analyze intention as a legal concept because a criminal should have clear objective of killing a person before committing a murder. However, if evidence does not support directed lethal effort of the suspect then he or she would be tried for manslaughter. Intensity of the sentence would be consequently reduced. Same rule would be applied in order to analyze the case of coownership[1]. The formalization of sexual relations into a marriage means that there is a measurable mutual intentions present between the couple. However, for unmarried unions the condition is very confusing to say the least[2].

Additionally, one should take oral contractual obligations as real representation of couple’s willing to develop coownership[3]. With the passage of time legal centers of the world are facing possibility of conflict amongst couples those do not want to legalize their relations and therefore this legal analysis upholds that coownership is a function of cohabitation. However, cohabitation is dependent on the willingness to craft official martial ties and if it is not present then transfer of property must occur before houses could be bought and sold between informal sexual partners[4]. The legal culture should not consider a couple as a single identity but the partners would carry separate identity in the eyes of law. Secondly, the law should assign hybrid characteristics to the relation because produced children would inherit properties and bank balance from both their parents. Again, we must apply the rule of consent over here[5]. Reproduction occurred due to consensual sex and therefore law would assign regular parenting responsibilities to the couple.

In this particular regard the couple would cooperatively raise their children. Lack of marriage means informal couples do not want to share their belongings. Until they form joint ownership with the help of forming partnership. The law could not consider them joint owners of the property. Sole owner of the property must pay utility and maintenance bills. However, the latent partner in this regard could participate to maintain the property as a courtesy to the owner who allowed him to live in her house[6]. One could consider partaking of a silent partner in the given scenario as representation of “behavioral rent” instead of monetary one.

Alternatively, the owner could invite tenant to sponsor operations of the house in financial terms and therefore lawmakers should identify this prospect as financial rent. In this way, we should respect mutual willingness of the couple to establish coownership. Lawyers could not possibly push couples into creating contracts because without contractual background. Coownership may not develop as a legally recognizable concept without underlying agreement and if informal couples wanted to create coownership then they shall have entered into marriage rather than living informally as pairs[7].

If government passes a law that forces people to cohabitate then it is coercing them into marriages and therefore the established agreement would not be lawfully binding to say the least. Choices of two individuals in selecting or deselecting official marriages must be respected under all circumstances.

Government has made the institution of marriage difficult to adopt for the masses that do not have sufficient wealth to accommodate huge settlements in the case of breakup and therefore general public wants it to play safe in this regard. Informal sexual relations are representation that couples need to test their compatibility prior to entering into a legal relationship. Freedom of sex is also permitted by the constitution of England[8]. The English Law states that “Everyone shall have the liberty to form association with others without being subjected to sarcasm in this regard”. We could translate the abovementioned quote to lend support to free sexual relations as well because law does not have any jurisdiction to regulate personal lives of the people especially in the country that was formed in order to protect freewill of the public.

National and political leadership of the developed world do not intervene into personal and private choices of the masses but governmental machinery would move in order to counteract criminal activity that may compromise freewill of others. The sources of terrorism could be internal and external[9]. Legal system would partner with military and police to respond to challenges relating to national security[10]. Law enforcement in general operates as a source of freedom to the public. However, in no way England could become so centric that the government will enforce the concepts of right and wrong unto the people. These are philosophical differences those drive people to choose “informal sexual relations” over formal ones. These personal decisions are backed by financial and fiscal considerations those males could face if the tie does not work out. Uncertainty capsuling the future of formal marriages would induce people to opt for having informal relations.  They want to keep influence of law out of their romantic lives.

Romantically engaged parties would not share materialistic properties because they do not trust each other fully but when bilateral trustworthiness is established then they would tie the knot of marriage. However, by that time the couple would have given birth to children and therefore the subsequent marriage would be stabilized. The government does not have to take any decisions in this regard because couples would decide accordingly when they feel that the time is appropriate to cement their cardinal choices.

Conclusion

            Conclusively, one could infer that interfering into personal problems and decisions of people may be viewed as an illegal action because national constitution of England values freedom of the individual. In the light of English Constitution people are free to socially associate with others and by definition they could also define the nature of their marital ties. Formalization of marriage could be governmentally facilitated but cannot be enforced on to the public. With development of mutual trust couples would move in the direction of developing coownership of their properties as well.

 

 Bibliography

  1. R Clements and A. Abass, Equity & Trusts 4th edition: Text, Cases, and Materials. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)
  2. A Collins, Contemporary Security Studies, 3rd edition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012),
  3. S Davies, G Virgo and E.H. Burn. Maudsley and Burns Equity and Trusts: Texts Cases and Materials. (Oxford: Oxford University Press , 2013)
  4. R Edwards and N Stockwell, Equity and Trusts. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
  5. C E Kubrin and T Stucky. Introduction to Criminal Justice: A Sociological Perspective. (Stanford: Stanford Social Sciences, 2013)
  6. R K Schutt,. Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. (New York: SAGE Publications, 2012),
  7. L J Siegel and J L Worrall. Essentials of Criminal Justice. (London: Wadsworth Publishing;, 2014),
  8. L Tummers and E Knies. ‘Measuring Public Leadership:Developing Scales for Key Public Leadership Roles’ Public Administration Early View 2016, 221-281
  9. Z Yunos, R Ahmad., S. M Ali and S Shamsuddin ‘Illicit Activities and Terrorism in Cyberspace: An Exploratory Study in the Southeast Asian Region’ Intelligence and Security Informatics vol 7299 no.1 2012 27-35
  10. M D Schlosser, S Cha-Jua., M Valgoi., and H A Neville, ‘Improving Policing in a Multiracial Society in the United States: A New Approach’ International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences vol 10 no.1 2015, 115-121

 

[1]  R Clements and A. Abass, Equity & Trusts 4th edition: Text, Cases, and Materials. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 123

 

[2] A Collins, Contemporary Security Studies, 3rd edition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 54

 

[3] P.S Davies, G Virgo and E.H. Burn. Maudsley and Burns Equity and Trusts: Texts Cases and Materials. ( Oxford: Oxford University Press , 2013), 143

 

[4] R Edwards and N Stockwell, Equity and Trusts. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 201 .

 

[5] C E Kubrin and T Stucky. Introduction to Criminal Justice: A Sociological Perspective. (Stanford: Stanford Social Sciences, 2013), 183

 

[6] R K Schutt,. Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. (New York: SAGE Publications, 2012), 135.

 

[7]  L J Siegel and J L Worrall. Essentials of Criminal Justice. (London: Wadsworth Publishing;, 2014), 228

[8] L Tummers and E Knies. ‘Measuring Public Leadership:Developing Scales for Key Public Leadership Roles’ Public Administration Early View 2016, p.281

 

[9] Z Yunos, et al. ‘Illicit Activities and Terrorism in Cyberspace: An Exploratory Study in the Southeast Asian Region’ Intelligence and Security Informatics vol 7299 no.1 2012, p.31

 

[10] Schlosser, M D, et al. ‘Improving Policing in a Multiracial Society in the United States: A New Approach’ International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences vol 10 no.1 2015, 117

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: