How does &quot;property in the goods&quot; make any sense? Aren&#39;t goods the property? The SGA 1979, like s 2, uses &quot;property in the goods&quot; X. But this feels bizarre in ordinary lay English! Native English speakers say that they are buying goods, fuel and food — not they are buying property in the goods, property in the fuel, and property in the food? What does property in the mean here? Can you please demystify this? 2 Contract of sale. (1) A contract of sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price. (2) There may be a contract of sale between one part owner and another. (3) A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. (4) Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer the contract is called a sale. (5) Where under a contract of sale the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition later to be fulfilled the contract is called an agreement to sell. (6) An agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses or the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred. Burnett LJ (former) — now LCJ — also uses this syntax at the bottom of this quotation from Lee Roach, Commercial Law 2019 3rd edn, p 208. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another (The ‘Res Cogitans’)13 it may not always be that straightforward to be able to recognize a contract of sale of goods. Despite its initial appearance as a contract of sale, the Supreme Court held that a contract for the supply of fuel bunkers, which contained a retention of title clause and permitted the shipowner to consume the bunkers during the period allowed for credit, was not a contract of sale within the meaning of SGA 1979, s 2(1). The contract was silent as to whether property in the consumed bunkers passed to the owners before or at the point of consumption. Lord Mance rejected an argument that property in the fuel must have been transferred a nanosecond before it was consumed and concluded that title in the consumed bunkers never passed to the owners. This case will be discussed in greater detail at pp 257–59. An unsuccessful attempt to extend the principles in The Res Cogitans to a case involving a claim for food poisoning at an all-inclusive catering holiday was made in Wood v TUI Travel plc, t/a First Choice,14 where the tour operator sought to rely upon the case in support of the contention that there was no intention to transfer any property in the food until the precise moment it was placed in the customer’s mouth and thereby destroyed. Burnett LJ was unconvinced by the reliance on The Res Cogitans, stating: The conclusion reached by the Supreme Court depended upon the relationship between the retention of title clause and the liberty nonetheless to consume fuel in which property had not already passed. The problem would not have arisen but for the retention of title clause. If the contract had been a straightforward one for the sale of fuel oil with no such clause, property in the bunkers would have passed on delivery, assuming the seller itself had property in them.15
&quot;Property in&quot; in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is an archaic phrase, carried over from previous versions of the Act adopted in the 1800s (which in turn carried on terminology from prior British common law cases), that means &quot;Ownership of&quot;. The archaic language was retained because it has such a rich case law (not just in the U.K., but throughout the British Commonwealth) interpreting it that would be lost or hard to access if the terminology were revised, in a situation where the case law was seen as a positive worth keeping.
It is the use of a "menace" which creates the crime, not the nature or validity of the demand. That's not correct. You've inadvertently missed the other element of the offence: that it's an "unwarranted demand". A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief— (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21 For example, I may have reasonable grounds under the Consumer Rights Act to demand a refund for a faulty good. It might be sensible to moderate one's language, e.g. "If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. This may increase your liability for costs." vs. "If I do not receive the money from you within 30 days of the date of this letter I'll take you to the f***ing cleaners, sunshine." But the language doesn't make the demand unwarranted.
In German Law you need to give your agreement ("Willenserklärung") to a contract or in this case terms of service. This is done by telling the other part. In some cases this can also be implied by an action (example: putting your bottle of beer onto the cashiers table is an offer to buy this bottle). As a second criteria a "Willenserklärung" needs to be the exact will of the part that declares its will (the website user in this case) §§ 133, 157 BGB or that the other side (you) could only see so (not the case here as this mainly speaks of content). If you visit a website and there are terms of services, the "Willenserklärung" is only given when the user read and agreed to the terms. If he did not, the terms of service are not applied until the user agrees to them. So I would recommend to block the website until the user agreed (overlay) as you need to proof he did when in court. Additionally there are so called AGB's in Germany. Those are contracts that are used or planed for many (more than 3) uses and set by one side (you). This may apply here, so you need to follow a lot of other rules like making sure the user had access and agreed, then there are many content restrictions and so on... I recommend consulting a German Lawyer specialized on this topic as this is very complex and includes other German laws for Media too, depending on the content of your site and terms. Also note that everything said is only based on my own knowledge and can not be used as safe legal source.
A "land contract" is not a way of renting property, it is a way of purchasing property on an installment basis without bank financing. It is Ohio's version of what in some other places is known as "contract for deed". See "What is a Land Contract in Ohio" and "How Land Contracts Work" The actual law is Section 5313. In a land contract, the buyer has equitable but not legal title. The buyer normally pays all taxes and fees, and is responsible for maintaining the property, just as if s/he has bought the property. But if the buyer defaults, all payments and equity would be forfeit to the seller. Until the buyer has paid 20% of the purchase price, or made 5 years of payments (whichever comes first) a single missed payment constitutes default and can lead to the buyer being evicted with all payments to date going to the seller, the buyer coming out of the deal with nothing. Also, if the seller still has a mortgage and defaults, the buyer may lose everything paid to date. The buyer does not have the protections that a lease gives a tenant, nor the protections that legal title gives a purchaser via a traditional mortgage. Land contracts are often used when the buyer cannot qualify for a mortgage. The buyer pays interest, and it is often at a higher rate than the current rate on a mortgage. Land contracts are often a form of predatory lending, but for some buyers they make sense. A buyer needs to carefully review the contract with a lawyer knowledgeable about land contracts, and consider the risks and benefits of this form of financing. As I understand it, there cannot be a valid land contract for one apartment in an apartment building. A land contract must be for title to the land and all fixtures, including all buildings, on it. (There was at one point some unclarity if the question referred to an apartment. It is now clear that it refers to a house, so this statement is not relevant to the OP, but may be to others.) It is not clear just what the OP's landlord (LL) has in mind. It may be that LL plans to offer a "land contract" in which the purchase would be completed only after a very long time, with the idea that the OP would simply default when s/he wanted to move. Such a default could harm the OP's credit. There seems no benefit to the OP in such a scheme compared to a lease, unless LL will lower the price significantly, taking into account maintenance costs and taxes, which OP may well be expected to pay under a land contract. Note that a landlord can't legally force a tenant to sign a document cancelling a lease, or to sign whatever s/he will call a "land contract". Nor can s/he cancel the lease without the tenant's consent except for good cause as specified in the law (such as not paying rent). S/He could become uncooperative on other matters if a tenant doesn't do as s/he wants. If a tenant does cancel his or her lease, s/he will lose some rights. Others are guaranteed by law as long as the tenant is paying rent. If one signs a "land contract", what happens depends on its provisions. OP needs to very carefully consider just what is being offered, and its risks and any possible benefits. Details of the contract will matter. No matter exactly what LL has in mind, this is not at all a usual procedure for a landlord. OP or anyone in a similar circumstance should be very careful.
Inferring from the question, it appears that: The tenancy is an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The tenancy agreement started on 16 December 2014. The initial fixed term was for 12 months. (Please comment below if any of this is incorrect). A Section 21 order gives notice that, unless the tenant leaves by the date given in the document, the landlord will begin legal proceedings against the tenant, in order to obtain a court order forcing the tenant to leave. To answer the OP's questions: Does it mean that she wants to use her right to cancel the contract after 2 months? It looks like that to me but I am not 100% sure. Yes - but if this is before the end of the fixed term (which I'm assuming is 15 December) there must be a clause in the tenancy agreement (normally called a "break clause") allowing the fixed term to be terminated early. If there is no break clause, then you cannot be asked to leave before the end of the fixed term. What does it mean "after 16/11/2015"? After can mean anything... even end of contract in December. Yes. The landlord would like you to leave before the date shown - but if you don't, the landlord can begin legal proceedings any time after that. Is this a legal document or just something she made up? It is a legal document. Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 allows a landlord to ask a tenant to leave without having to give a reason. The landlord must meet certain conditions in order for the notice to be valid. What happens if I want to leave the house later because I don't find alternative? You'll need to discuss that with the landlord. However, if you don't leave by the end of the fixed term, you are entitled to stay (and pay rent!) until a court (not the landlord) orders your eviction. EDIT: This website goes into a lot more detail about the whole Section 21 procedure.
Because English loves homophones A lot of words in English have more than one meaning. The current front runner is run with 645 definitions in the OED. Understanding English requires more than knowing the definitions, it requires understanding the context. Warranty in a contract law context means a term the breach of which does not justify terminating the contract. Or a term of a contract rather than a representation about the contract, depending on context. Warranty also has a common meaning that makes it a synonym of guarantee. It can also mean a court order calling for the arrest of someone (an arrest warrant) or to search a premises (a search warrant). It can also mean the authorization from the government to act as a high ranking NCO in a military service - NCOs hold warrants, officers have commissions. Among others ...
You are not bound by any contract. You bought a physical good that the seller was barred from selling outside of the listed countries by his supplier. You did not enter a contract with the seller's supplier. Let's look the stream of commerce: Supplier of the item (Printing press) offers it. Sale with a sales limiting contract to resellers. Sale by reseller to customer without limiting contract. The first sale doctrine says, that without a form of contract, the rights of the supplier are exhausted in step 2. Even with a contract limiting the reseller's rights, step 3 exhausts any right the supplier has in the item, unless he too explicitly signs a contract. Selling an item in normal commerce is not satisfying this requirement. There already were no rights in the physical copy of the book when whoever bought the book first sold it to the second-hand seller you bought it from, and there can't be any more rights in the selling of this book gained by the original supplier unless he bought the book back from you.
No Common law jurisdictions read contracts objectively - that is if it unambiguously states what the parties agreed to then that is what the parties agreed to. If that includes selling your offspring into slavery or mortgaging your organs then so be it (such terms would be void for illegality but if they weren’t illegal then what it says is what happens). Terms can be implied into contracts but only in limited circumstances: implied by statute. A statute can imply a term if a contract doesn’t. A statute can also override an explicit term with the statute’s term. implied by custom. Customary usage in an industry or market can be implied into a contract. implied by past dealings. If the parties have repeatedly entered into contracts, terms may be implied by their past conduct. implied at law. Specific categories of contracts can assume implied terms, for example, property leases imply that the tenant will have quiet enjoyment of the premises. Such terms can be overridden by explicit terms. implied by fact. Such terms must be reasonable and equitable; necessary to give business efficiency to the contract. For example, the contract will not work effectively without the term; so obvious that it ‘goes without saying’. An impartial bystander in the position of the parties should be able to assume that the term is part of the contract; capable of clear expression; and not contradict any other terms of the contract. If there is no clause permitting the host to cancel the contract, there is no basis for implying one: the host cannot cancel the contract. If they do they are repudiating the contract and the other pa try can sue for damages.