Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

The functional–formal impasse in (trust) property

  • Jesse Wall (a1)
Abstract

This paper identifies an impasse between two conceptions of ‘property rights’. Formal conceptions explain ‘property rights’ in terms of an alienable right to exclude, that has moral significance in terms of individuals’ preference satisfaction, and describe a trust beneficiary as having a right against the trustees’ right. Functional conceptions explain a ‘property right’ in terms of the entitlements in a resource, which has moral significance in terms of a range of individual and social values, and describe a trust beneficiary as having a share in entitlements in the resource. This impasse has general implications for the normative analysis of property law and particular implications for the practical application of redistributive statutory provisions to discretionary trusts. The solution to this impasse lies in the abandoning the language of ‘property’ when we are concerned with the entitlements in a resource.

Copyright
Corresponding author
References
Hide All
Alexander, G.S. (1998) ‘Property as Propriety’, Nebraska Law Review 77: 667702.
Alexander, G.S. (2009) ‘The Social Obligation Norm in American Property Law’, Cornell Law Review 94: 745820.
Alexander, G.S. (2011) ‘Pluralism and Property’, Fordham Law Review 80: 10171052.
Alexander, G.S. (2012) ‘Governance Property’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 160: 18541887.
Alexander, G.S. (2014) ‘Property's Ends: The Publicness of Private Law Values’, Iowa Law Review 99: 12571296.
Baron, J.B. (2010) ‘The Contested Commitments of Property’, Hastings Law Review 61: 917967.
Dagan, H. (2011) Property: Values and Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dagan, H. (2012) ‘Pluralism and Perfectionism in Private Law’, Columbia Law Review 112: 14091446.
Davies, M.J. and Naffine, N. (2001) Are Persons Property? Legal Debates about Property and Personality. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Green, S. (2012) ‘Rights and Wrongs: An Introduction to the Wrongful Interference Actions’ in Nolan, D. and Robertson, A. (eds) Rights and Private Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Harris, J.W. (1996) Property and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hegel, G.W.F. and Wood, A.W. (eds) (1991) Elements of the Philosophy of Right, trans. Nisbet, H.B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hohfeld, W.N. (1917) ‘Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’, Yale Law Journal 26: 710770.
Honoré, T. (1961) ‘Ownership’ in Making Law Bind: Essays Legal and Philosophical. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Knowles, D. (1983) ‘Hegel on Property and Personality’, The Philosophical Quarterly 33: 4562.
Makdisi, J. (2017) ‘Uncaring Justice: Why Jacque v. Steenberg Homes Was Wrongly Decided’, Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 51(2): 111144.
Mcfarlane, B. (2008) The Structure of Property Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Mcfarlane, B. and Stevens, R. (2010) ‘The Nature of Equitable Property’, Journal of Equity 4: 128.
Merrill, T.W. (1998) ‘Property and the Right to Exclude’, Nebraska Law Review 77: 730755.
Merrill, T.W. and Smith, H.E. (2007) ‘The Morality of Property’, William & Mary Law Review 48: 18491895.
O'Mahony, L.F. (2014) ‘Property Outsiders and the Hidden Politics of Doctrinalism’, Current Legal Problems 67: 409445.
Penner, J.E. (1997) The Idea of Property in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Penner, J.E. (2014) ‘The (True) Nature of a Beneficiary's Equitable Proprietary Interest’, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 27: 473500.
Pound, R. (1939) ‘The Law of Property and Recent Juristic Thought’, American Bar Association Journal 25: 993998.
Radin, M.J. (1982) ‘Property and Personhood’, Stanford Law Review 34: 9571015.
Singer, J.W. (2000) Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Singer, J.W. (2009) ‘Democratic Estates: Property Law in a Free and Democratic Society’, Cornell Law Review 94: 10091062.
Smith, H.E. (2004) ‘Property and Property Rules’, New York University Law Review 79: 17191798.
Smith, H.E. (2009) ‘Mind the Gap: The Indirect Relation between Ends and Means in American Property Law’, Cornell Law Review 94: 959990.
Smith, H.E. (2011) ‘Modularity and Morality in the Law of Torts’, Journal of Tort Law 4: 132.
Smith, H.E. (2012) ‘Property as the Law of Things’, Harvard Law Review 125: 16911726.
Smith, L.D. (2008) ‘Trust and Patrimony’, Revue générale de droit 38: 379403.
Waldron, J. (1988) The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wall, J. (2015) Being and Owning: The Body, Bodily Material and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wendel, W.B. (2011) ‘Explanation in Legal Scholarship: The Inferential Structure of Doctrinal Analysis’, Cornell Law Review 96: 10351074.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Law in Context
  • ISSN: 1744-5523
  • EISSN: 1744-5531
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-law-in-context
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed