ABSTRACT
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, https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaa043. Published: 21 September 2021.
First posted 2021-09-22 08:00:41
Leave a Reply