Tasks Property Law
Content: 30326145100093.docx (17.85 KB)
Uploaded: 26.03.2013
Positive responses: 0
Negative responses: 0
Sold: 0
Refunds: 0
Seller: ИФЦ Студия
information about the seller and its items
Loyalty discount! If the total amount of your purchases from the seller more than:
| $25 | the discount is | 10% |
| $50 | the discount is | 20% |
$2.98
Task 2
Mikhailov and Zaitseva lived as one family without marriage registration and built a house. After the termination of the joint life, a dispute arose over the division of the house, for the resolution of which the parties went to court. The court recognized their house as joint property and divided it equally. Mikhailov appealed the court decision, stating in the appeal that Zaitseva did not work during their life together, and the house was built with money that was earned only by him. In addition, their marriage was not registered with the registry office, therefore, in accordance with Art. 256 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation cannot be their joint property.
Are there in this case the legal facts necessary for the emergence of common joint ownership of a residential building between Mikhailov and Zaitseva. Will the decision change if Mikhailov and Zaitseva had a minor child who stayed with his mother?
Task 3
Nikolaev, the owner of a small building, was absent for a long time, boarding up the windows and doors. The district administration ordered to open the house. After drawing up an act on the destruction of the house, 75 percent of the land on which the house was located was allocated for construction to Konstantinov. Nikolaev´s house was handed over to Konstantinov free of charge as building materials.
During the summer construction season, Konstantinov completely restored the house, replanned and overhauled it.
In the fall, Nikolaev returned to his former place of residence and demanded that Konstantinov hand over the house to him. Konstantinov suggested that Nikolaev apply to the district administration, which recognized Nikolaev´s claim as unfounded, citing his long absence.
Resolve the dispute.
Task 4
At the request of his friend, Zaslavsky agreed to transport the color TV purchased by Piskarev to his car. On the way, Zaslavsky lost control and the car turned over. The driver and the driver were not injured, and the TV set in the trunk was completely broken.
Piskarev demanded that Zaslavsky reimburse the cost of the TV that had fallen into disrepair. Zaslavsky objected to this, because, in his opinion, he wanted to do Piskarev a purely comradely service. They did not conclude any contract, he did not receive money for transporting the TV, and therefore no obligations arose between them. In addition, as a result of the accident, not only Piskarev suffered losses, but also he, Zaslavsky, since he would have to spend an amount much larger than the cost of the TV to repair the car.
Question: who is right in this dispute? Was there a civil liability in this case?
Mikhailov and Zaitseva lived as one family without marriage registration and built a house. After the termination of the joint life, a dispute arose over the division of the house, for the resolution of which the parties went to court. The court recognized their house as joint property and divided it equally. Mikhailov appealed the court decision, stating in the appeal that Zaitseva did not work during their life together, and the house was built with money that was earned only by him. In addition, their marriage was not registered with the registry office, therefore, in accordance with Art. 256 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation cannot be their joint property.
Are there in this case the legal facts necessary for the emergence of common joint ownership of a residential building between Mikhailov and Zaitseva. Will the decision change if Mikhailov and Zaitseva had a minor child who stayed with his mother?
Task 3
Nikolaev, the owner of a small building, was absent for a long time, boarding up the windows and doors. The district administration ordered to open the house. After drawing up an act on the destruction of the house, 75 percent of the land on which the house was located was allocated for construction to Konstantinov. Nikolaev´s house was handed over to Konstantinov free of charge as building materials.
During the summer construction season, Konstantinov completely restored the house, replanned and overhauled it.
In the fall, Nikolaev returned to his former place of residence and demanded that Konstantinov hand over the house to him. Konstantinov suggested that Nikolaev apply to the district administration, which recognized Nikolaev´s claim as unfounded, citing his long absence.
Resolve the dispute.
Task 4
At the request of his friend, Zaslavsky agreed to transport the color TV purchased by Piskarev to his car. On the way, Zaslavsky lost control and the car turned over. The driver and the driver were not injured, and the TV set in the trunk was completely broken.
Piskarev demanded that Zaslavsky reimburse the cost of the TV that had fallen into disrepair. Zaslavsky objected to this, because, in his opinion, he wanted to do Piskarev a purely comradely service. They did not conclude any contract, he did not receive money for transporting the TV, and therefore no obligations arose between them. In addition, as a result of the accident, not only Piskarev suffered losses, but also he, Zaslavsky, since he would have to spend an amount much larger than the cost of the TV to repair the car.
Question: who is right in this dispute? Was there a civil liability in this case?
completed tasks have the author´s unique text.
No feedback yet