McFarlane and Douglas, ‘Property, Analogy and Variety’

How should a court respond if a party argues that, because her right to an intangible asset is a property right, the defendant is under a strict duty not to interfere with that intangible asset? Our view is that such a conclusion does not follow from the premise, and the argument is really one that the party’s right deserves protection as it is sufficiently analogous to a right to a tangible asset.

Ben McFarlane and Simon Douglas, Property, Analogy and Variety, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Published: 21 September 2021.

First posted 2021-09-22 08:00:41

Leave a Reply