Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSmith, Henry
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:31.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:41:12Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:41:12Z
dc.date.issued2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/3144
dc.identifier.contextkey2272267
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/2528
dc.description.abstractMore than most areas of law, property causes impatience. Most of us have a sense that property is doing something important, but it does it in a somewhat mysterious way. Yes, laypeople have a clear sense of who owns what, and scholars can more or less expound the welter of rules that come under the heading of “property.” But to many, the fact that much of the time property tells some people that they can tell other people to keep out seems selfish and rude, and more or less unrelated to the purposes for which we have property in the first place. We, speaking of course on behalf of society, have a clearer sense of what property is supposed to do than how it is supposed to do it. Gregory Alexander’s The Social-Obligation Norm in American Property Law shares these strengths and weaknesses. Its virtue is in being very clear about purposes, but its focus on ends ultimately undermines its account of and justification for its chosen means.
dc.titleMind the Gap: The Indirect Relation between Ends and Means in American Property Law
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:41:12Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3144
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4043&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Mind_the_Gap_The_Indirect_Rela ...
Size:
159.2Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record