-1

Or is it more a taxonomical device used to deduce as to whether or not a given agreement for accommodation is legally to be deemed a tenancy?

In other words, considering the following quotation from the law lords' decision...

"The manufacture of a five pronged implement for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he intended to make and has made a spade,

...can it be said that exclusive possession is more akin to the number of prongs required to render something as that which may be described as a fork, rather than any legal stipulations as to the prescribed conduct surrounding forks?

10
  • Can you please be more specific as to the problem or issue you want addressed, and the context in which it arises. Aug 28 at 18:21
  • I don't see how I could be. It is genuinely a general question about the law, striving to understand the law itself. Genuinely not sarcastic, and I know that (fortunately and rightly so) the rule is sometimes disregarded but like, I thought this site wasn't supposed to be for specific legal advice but only understanding of law?
    – Joseph P.
    Aug 28 at 21:01
  • In any case I can share the context in which the question was formed in my mind, although it must be stated that the question stands in its own right independently of its mental origin. Many sites and blog articles claim that all tenancies implicitly feature exclusive possession. A recent UKHL case link however suggests to me rather that it is the other way around: if you are effectively granted exclusive possession then what you have is a tenancy along with all the protections and regulatory provisions that apply to and go along with that. In other words, the term exclusive possession isn't
    – Joseph P.
    Aug 28 at 21:04
  • Such a legal protection itself per se, but a factual condition which establishes and affords various other protections.
    – Joseph P.
    Aug 28 at 21:05
  • 1
    Follows on from this question: law.stackexchange.com/questions/83677/… Aug 28 at 21:09

1 Answer 1

0

Both

A tenant has the right of exclusive possession.

A person who has a right of exclusive possession is a tenant.

Exclusive possession is so fundamental to a lease that one implies the other.

3
  • Can you cite any support for that either of these would imply the other rather than just in one direction?
    – Joseph P.
    Aug 28 at 23:45
  • @JosephP. I did
    – Dale M
    Aug 29 at 8:06
  • Okay well at best it is a link-only citation. A more specific reference or quotation or excerpt would be appreciated especially as I have already quoted directly from that decision in my question and proposed the impression that it suggests the opposite of what you claim so citing the same link back without explaining how in fact it supports the opposite of what I had thought it does is basically just saying "I know you are but what am I?"
    – Joseph P.
    Aug 29 at 10:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.