English Property Law - Essay Example

People are often keen on what they own; they do not like having challenges that arise because of their property. To set the rules about property and ownership in England, there is English property law. Generally, property law has to do with the acquirement, sharing, and security of possessions. The scope of property law is very wide but can be streamlined into two—real and personal. While the real property has to do with all that pertains to land, personal property has to do mainly with commercial law and liquidation. Most times, in England, real property is considered to be more important. Intellectual property is also integral to property law. One of the reasons for the promulgation of the law is the need to create a distinction between real property and personal property (Worthington 2000 92). Of course, one of the most important goals of those that promulgated the law is to ensure that the conflicts that arise regarding the ownership of property will be reduced as much as possible.

One of the instances that can be used to truly certify that the English property system is more pragmatic than theoretical is the manner in which judges give judgment in cases, precisely those that pertain to property law. Instead of strictly following what the statutes say, most judges would rather rely on logic.

Locke’s theory of property also seems to reiterate this point. This is because Locke begins his arguments by stating that, at inception, the property was personal—meaning that there were no individual owners. However, the persistence of this state of things will mean that no one would be able to use land, for example, for individual or communal benefit. Locke recognizes that there is the need to create a system in which individuals can lay claim of ownership to what was hitherto communally owned (Tully 1980 34). This aspiration would be impossible if one desires to get the assent of every member of the community. It can only happen when individuals begin to exchange something in return for what they desire. At the very inception, it was their bodily sweat; later, it was valuable property; and finally, it became money. The introduction of money meant that the yardstick for separating the wealthy from the poor had been established.

By interpretation, one could assume either of these two opinions.  First, one could conclude that the flexibility, rather than the rigidity, of the English property law, has really helped to limit the level at which every Tom, Dick, and Harry who is a capitalist would be able to turn the personal property into real property. Secondly, one may conclude, on the other hand, that flexibility of the English property law (which is best established in the practical sense) has helped to materialize the desire of the capitalist to convert most of what was formerly owned communally into real property. On the whole, one would discover that Locke’s property theory favors capitalism as against communalism. What Locke defends is that money can be the solution to all problems (Tully 1980 52). Even in England, this seems to be true because if anybody is rich enough to employ the services of a proficient lawyer, the case is close to being won already even before any judgment is pronounced. The lawyer would be able to also turn the odds to favor their client.

The English property is very fluid in nature. Most lawyers, hence, take advantage of this. They have been able to make the English property law, which to an average person would appear as one of the most rigid laws ever, into one that has become very flexible (Worthington 2000 97). For instance, there is really no clear distinction between real and personal property again. This is because lawyers have been able to interchange them, through interpretation, to suit the demands of their case. What lawyers have been able to accomplish may not really be as a result of their ingenuity but as a result of the fact that the law itself has created the lapses. For example, normally, the English statute would recognize an estate owned by a family as personal property, however, that may not be so for too long a time because when it is time to practice the spirit of the law, the family land can easily be converted into real property. Economically speaking, if the land ownership remains that of the family, the wealth gets to too many people; if it is that of fewer people, the wealth gets into the hands of a lesser number of people. The individual may have a right to it as much as the family. What is right is not necessarily determined by who is right but by the party that has more access to economic means.