4 ms·

All of which, as I said, provide an enforceable claim against those things.

• freejazz 3y ago
  Claim of what though? If my claim is for real property, but with a reversion, and the reversion is triggered, I have no claim left...
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • c0pium 3y ago
    Reversions are a common clause in leases, which nobody would call ownership. It’s certainly the case that the word could be viewed to have a confusing meaning if it’s misused in situations where it obviously doesn’t apply. You can own a partial stake in something, either real or not, and have an enforceable claim which is to less than total control or subject to conditions. You can also have a purchase a contract which provides access or use in some way but isn’t ownership. The latter is very common digitally and is the subject of this thread.
    • freejazz 3y ago
      "If you have an enforceable claim on something, then you own it. If your claim is not enforceable then you possess it." Let me repeat myself for clarity. You can own a property with a reversion. You can own a leashold with a reversion. They are both enforceable claims. You can exclude people for the term of your lease. How is that not an enforceable claim? You said an enforceable claim means ownership. I think you were mistaken in saying because it's not true. Now you are caveating it to portions of a whole. But a leasehold is for the entirety, just for a term.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]