Talk:Accession (property law)

Don't libraries, like museums, use the term Accession for additions to their collections?

Yes. It can be used as a verb, describing the acquisition of a set of materials, or as a noun, to refer to that set of materials. A new addition to an existing collection would be a new accession.

What on Earth??!

I didn't understand a thing in that opening paragraph. Didn't read the rest. Andrelim1 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opaque

What an astoundingly obtuse definition. I'm more confused about the term after reading it, than I was before I started. Ugh. --Leperflesh 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the world of property law. A world of obfuscated definitions. This article needs examples and better definitions. As it stands, it does not make sense to lawyers, let alone a lay person. I have no idea what good my edits have done. I did not delete anything, I just attempted to clarify the initial definition. I came here seeking clarification, and ended up trying to make sense of it for others. The text I sourced was Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices by Joseph William Singer. Maztec (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to wikipedia, but trying to help (the starter page had a link to here. I think an example in the summary paragraph would be really helpful. To provide one, would I need a source for the example, or would an editor make up an example that applies to a sourced definition? --User:Cameron Ehteshami —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made 3 seperate changes to the article, first I added a link to Bad Faith, as that is something helpful to read up on, second I added examples to the summary of accession, third I moved the "Accession might be..." paragraph down into the Roman Accession section, as that seems to be what the paragraph is talking about. I marked them as minor edits, and would love it if a fellow editor sanity checked me, I read about the Be Bold policy, just don't want to go running amok on Wikipedia. Cameron Ehteshami (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public International Law

I've tried to clarify the existing section..

Organization

Can we rename this article to 'Accession (law)'? Or perhaps 'Accession (property law)? There is already at least one case of having the legal discussion about a particular case be labeled as law (see Gift (law) for example). We could then take all the non-legal aspects of accession (i.e. other meanings section) and put them in a general disambiguation page named 'Accession'... (such as the one I attempted to create Accession (disambiguation)). This seems like a reasonable idea, anybody opposed? --InsufficientData (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As described in Talk:Accession, I attempted to make usages of Accession less confusing. But I did not substantially tough the innards of Accession (property law), other than to remove non-property law related concepts. Currently, the article is a mismash of Roman legal theory and general property law ideals. Any ideas for how to write these into an encyclopedia article that flows nicely and explains the relevant relationship between the two ideas? --InsufficientData (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably going to take a look at this over the next couple months. Accession in property law is an ancient concept, and in common law countries like the US, has an enormous body of law attached to it. The two main legal encyclopedias of American law have entire parts about Accession, and I'm willing to bet the coverage in the old Abridgements is extensive. And since it's evidently descended from a Roman law concept, it probably exists (or existed) in civil law countries as well, which means there'll be a whole mountain of sources on it there too.

And to those who don't get it, here are some definitions by example (cited in Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition):

A uses his cloth to patch a coat belonging to B. The patched coat belongs to B. The patch became the property of B by accession.
A uses his concrete to pour a driveway on land owned by B. The driveway belongs to B. The driveway became the property of B by accession.

A more complicated case:

A bought a car, financed through B in a secured transaction. A takes the car to C for repairs, and the vehicle requires a new engine and other work. C puts in a new engine, reserving a security interest (i.e., putting a lien on the car) as part of financing the repairs at the time of installation. If A defaults on the first loan and B wants to repossess the car, then C should have a right to remove the "accessions" (i.e., the engine/parts). If, however, C had not reserved a security interest, B would likely prevail (and potentially gain a windfall from having a vehicle with a new engine).
A owns Blackacre, with his neighbor B owning Whiteacre. B starts cutting trees on his land and accidentally trespasses on Blackacre, cutting a number of trees on Blackacre, and takes them to be turned into lumber, and builds furniture out of the wood. Does A have a right to the furniture (or the finished lumber for that matter) made from wood sourced from his land? I'm not sure.

There are lots of other wrinkles, but the main point is that accession deals with who prevails when two pieces of property from two different owners are combined or attached or improved in some manner. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]