Property Law 1

Part Two – Section A, B & C

Section A

In light of the feedback I received from part one of the workbook, I will do the following 5 things differently and the following 5 things the same as shown below:

5 things I will do differently:

  1. The arguments that were raised within my answers were accompanied by examples but the issue being brought forward lacked development. Further development of an issue raised requires me to link the example I have used to the question I am answering. In order to develop the answer, there needs to be a discussion on my part to show for example what the example means in terms of my answer; this need’s to be shown with more clarity via my own discussion. Hence my discussion should aim to answer the and so what? why? what? when? questions. By applying relevant examples with relevant discussion geared to answering the question it will enable me to bring out the points I am raising more fully.
  2. In section B of part one I raised a point in the early part of the short report but did not give an example to show what I was trying to show. Instead I used an example later in my short report which was very relevant to the issue raised initially; I should have used it in what I was stating earlier in the report to give richness to the point I raised earlier. Hence I need to carefully plan my answers with relevant examples to the question being answered.
  3. In part one, section B, part of my answer was not relevant to answering the question. Hence I will try to be careful that my answer is orientated to answering the question. In order to achieve this, it helps to read the question as many times as required during the course of the assignment and when reviewing or proofreading the work in case it needs editing to bring it in line with what it should be.
  4. In part one, section A I stated the argument was clear and would provide Fred with appropriate advice as he was seeking but I overlooked the fact the argument did not come to a firm conclusion on his position as there were some details that needed clarifying before conclusive advice could have been given to Fred and therefore the argument was not clear in providing Fred with the advice he was seeking.
  5. The feedback stated my legal citations needed checking. Hence I need to make sure I am making use of citations in the correct manner. And I will include a bibliography of the sources used at the end of the report.

5 things I will do the same as Part One:

  1. I will use cases as before to support and illustrate points being raised.
  2. I will continue to try to look at both sides of the argument where possible e.g. cases that show a certain issue to be a certain way but another case may show it as different in a slightly different scenario – hence try to critically evaluate but to better affect.
  3. I will continue to try and show conclusions at the end of sections where necessary to sum up what was being said and to bring the report to a close with a meaningful summary.
  4. The report needs to start with an introduction, the core themes will be developed in the middle of the report and the end will aim to bring the main points of the whole report together.  
Join now!

Section B

This report will look into how far the Latin maxim “cuis est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos” or “he who owns the land owns everything reaching to the heavens and down to the centre of the earth” still holds true today.

Gray and Gray (2009) state that the Latin maxim traces back to medieval times when its meaning held true. However in modern property law, there is evidence to suggest this does not hold true today.

In Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd, it was declared ...

This is a preview of the whole essay