| Summary: | <p>Rules in English law regarding transfer of rights with respect to land and movables can generally fit into the framework of the abstract system. As a default rule throughout English property law, a separate stage of conveyance is necessary to complete the transfer of title, although in cases of unconditional sale of ascertained goods, it is possible to transfer title by the transferor’s intent alone. A study of the Sale of Goods Acts and detinue demonstrates that the contract of sale itself has never been a means of conveyance throughout English legal history. No matter whether a conveyance is made by <em>solo consensu</em> or by additional means, a separate intent to convey remains distinct from the intent to bargain. So long as the conveyance is valid according to its own rules, invalidating factors in the underlying basis of that conveyance in principle do not infect the validity of the conveyance itself. Revesting of title by rescinding the contract of sale induced by fraudulent misrepresentation is an exception, but the underlying rationale in those cases is flawed. From a normative perspective, the alleged ‘unfairness’ to the transferor under extreme circumstances is not self-evident. Arguments such as ‘initial impaired consent subtraction’ or ‘assumption of insolvency risk plus swollen assets’ might serve as possible ways to determine such ‘unfairness’. Nonetheless, these arguments remain problematic if employed to justify the need for causality. A unique characteristic of English law is that in certain impaired consent transfer cases, although title transferred cannot revest at law, equity may grant a right under a constructive trust with numerous proprietary attributes. However, this is nevertheless consistent with the operation of the English abstract system, for such an equitable interest acquired by the transferor, unlike what he could acquire under a causal system, is by its nature not a right <em>in rem</em>. With these observations, English law could provide at least three lessons for the ongoing debate in Chinese academia about whether Chinese law should adopt the principles of separation and abstraction.</p>
|
|---|