Hi, thanks for the great content. I want to ask something. I think the key here is whether or not the occupier has exclusive possession, no matter you sign a lease or license. Am I right? As long as the occupy has no exclusive possession, it is a license, right?
Great video! A question I have is. Are assured shorthold tenancies considered leases? Often they are 1 year in duration but can be longer. If they exceed 3 years should they be a deed?
Criticism of Briton makes some sense when you also consider contract law. The occupier would not necessarily have known those points when agreeing they may only have become evident later on. This then did no impact on what was actually happening with the parties involved.
Thanks for watching! I think some of the best further reading texts on this topic are as follows: S Bright, 'Protecting Multiple Occupancy - Brady Revisited' (1992) 145 NLJ 575 P Sparkes, 'Certainty of Leasehold Terms' (1993) 109 LQR 93 S Bright, 'Uncertainty in Leases - is it a vice?' (1993) 13 LS 38
When you argue that there is no undue influence or coercion in agreeing to a license rather than a lease, you are ignoring that desperate and vulnerable people don't need to be coerced in order to agree to things that are not in their best longterm interests. If you have a child, you will agree to anything to ensure they have a roof over their head.
Hey, thanks for your comment! The point I was trying to make was that if there is no undue influence or coercion (and, of course, sometimes there is), then parties should have the freedom to decide whether they have a lease or a licence. However, in circumstances where there IS undue influence, coercion, or some other form of duress then, quite rightly, the court should step in :) We also need to remember that the same argument could be made about any contract. People enter contracts all the time where it may not be in their total best interest to enter, but that doesn't mean we should completely undermine freedom of contract. There is a careful balancing act to play!
@@digestiblelaw4647 Agree, however fundamental rights such as housing should be protected to a much higher degree. The reasoning is case law is clear that it was open to abuse and being abused. Your videos are brilliant btw, very clear, concise and a great help, so a big thank you for the content.👏👍
Subscribe to my personal channel for videos on how to study law effectively & efficiently: th-cam.com/channels/wgN8QVt3yIqcoi04EVqEYA.html
so in what circumstances will a license look like a lease?
Very insightful and helpful !! Thank you can you please assist me in explaining how property law is linked to leases and licenses?
Much appreciated.
Hi, thanks for the great content. I want to ask something. I think the key here is whether or not the occupier has exclusive possession, no matter you sign a lease or license. Am I right? As long as the occupy has no exclusive possession, it is a license, right?
Great video!
A question I have is. Are assured shorthold tenancies considered leases? Often they are 1 year in duration but can be longer. If they exceed 3 years should they be a deed?
Criticism of Briton makes some sense when you also consider contract law. The occupier would not necessarily have known those points when agreeing they may only have become evident later on. This then did no impact on what was actually happening with the parties involved.
Can you please recommend me some academics’ views on the difference between leases and licences? I mean some legal commentators’ opinions in brief.
Thanks for watching! I think some of the best further reading texts on this topic are as follows:
S Bright, 'Protecting Multiple Occupancy - Brady Revisited' (1992) 145 NLJ 575
P Sparkes, 'Certainty of Leasehold Terms' (1993) 109 LQR 93
S Bright, 'Uncertainty in Leases - is it a vice?' (1993) 13 LS 38
When you argue that there is no undue influence or coercion in agreeing to a license rather than a lease, you are ignoring that desperate and vulnerable people don't need to be coerced in order to agree to things that are not in their best longterm interests. If you have a child, you will agree to anything to ensure they have a roof over their head.
Hey, thanks for your comment! The point I was trying to make was that if there is no undue influence or coercion (and, of course, sometimes there is), then parties should have the freedom to decide whether they have a lease or a licence. However, in circumstances where there IS undue influence, coercion, or some other form of duress then, quite rightly, the court should step in :)
We also need to remember that the same argument could be made about any contract. People enter contracts all the time where it may not be in their total best interest to enter, but that doesn't mean we should completely undermine freedom of contract. There is a careful balancing act to play!
@@digestiblelaw4647 Agree, however fundamental rights such as housing should be protected to a much higher degree. The reasoning is case law is clear that it was open to abuse and being abused.
Your videos are brilliant btw, very clear, concise and a great help, so a big thank you for the content.👏👍
Can anyone with license refuse entry to the land owners.
Very helpful!
😁