ABSTRACT
An account limited to what a person may or must do does not identify to whom a duty is owed or what legal effects an act produces. A public duty need not give an individual a private claim. An owner who has a contractual duty not to sell an asset may still have the legal power to transfer it to a buyer. I distinguish three dimensions of legal positions: deontic qualification, directedness, and normative effect. In the formal language and model classes developed here, I prove that none of the three can be defined in terms of the other two. The proof compares models that agree on two dimensions and differ on the third, using the same agents, acts, and states throughout each comparison. Together, the three dimensions are sufficient to reconstruct Hohfeld’s eight incidents and combinations of those incidents at higher orders. Powers and immunities concern particular legal relations. An act may change one of those relations while leaving others unchanged. Applications to tort, corporate law, and property transfer show how these distinctions identify differences that a description of permitted or required conduct alone would miss.
Sepe, Simone M, Hohfeld Deconstructed (September 28, 2026), Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence.
Leave a Reply