Agreement To Sell Creates Right In Rem

120 See supra n. 19. Less ridiculous, but no less irrational is the way to define ownership as a sum of “rights” or benefits (user, possession, disposition, etc.). In this regard, our status (see 6, text before No. 37) follows the model of Roman law. 4 “An absolute right, unlike a parent, which is available to the plaintiff against the whole world simply because he owns it,” in Sussmann`s words, J. (Berent v. Berent (1958) 12 P.D. 565, 580). Google Scholar 69 Land Law, 1969, 27; Furniture real estate law, 1971, para. 9; Contract law, 1973, para. 59. The parallel treatment of physical and bodily property (already described above 6) is also illustrated in the objects and reasons mentioned in paragraph 59 (62 in the original draft): “The plurality of creditors, whose condition is the same guilt to two or more persons, is in fact of the same nature as that of co-ownership, in which property is an abstract right and not a physical property.” 39 Right to Sell, 1968, paragraph 4, point a): “The provisions of this Act apply to the sale of personal property and, mutatis mutandis, to the sale of land and rights.” 143 For Israel, see supra nn.

50 and 51. As far as foreign laws are concerned, foreign laws allow the creation of a purely heritage debt. Thus, according to the German B.G.B, “a piece of land can be debited so that a certain amount of this land is payable to the person for whom the charge is made up” (Az. 1191, translated by Forrester, Goren- Iligen, Ed. Rothman, 1975). Such a tax, known as property debt, does not imply personal liability, distinguishing between mortgages (defined in . 1113 of the same code). See Cohn, E.J., Manual of German Law (2nd ed., London – Dobbs Ferry, 1968) I, 215-6Google Scholar. The Swiss code of 10 Dec 1907 contains a similar clause (Article 847).

In one Israeli case, the parties invoked the provisions of the Russian Imperial Civil Code, according to which the only recourse of a creditor whose advantage had been inscribed on the debtor`s estate was to sell the property: as a result of such a sale, the debt was paid when the proceeds were not sufficient to cover the entire debt. (Shor v. Estate Weisman (1954) 8 S.D. 612, 625). With regard to French law itself, Dabin (quoted above 9, 36 s.) tried in vain to prove that he excluded the existence of real rights to faciendo.