Show simple item record

dc.creatorBaron, Jane B.
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-08T19:53:07Z
dc.date.available2021-07-08T19:53:07Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citationJane B. Baron, Rescuing the Bundle-of-Rights Metaphor in Property Law, 82 U. Cin. L. Rev. (2014).
dc.identifier.citationAvailable at: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr/vol82/iss1/2
dc.identifier.issn0009-6881
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/6706
dc.description.abstractFor much of the twentieth century, legal academics conceptualized property as a bundle of rights. But property theory today is deeply divided between theorists who focus on property’s ends, i.e., its reflection of values such as democracy or human flourishing, and those who focus on property’s means, i.e., its use of qualities such as modularity and exclusion to manage complexity in a cost-effective way. The bundle-of-rights conceptualization has been swept up into the controversy, becoming the particular target of means-focused theorists, who argue that the bundle conceptualization obscures critical features of the property system, most notably its use of strategies of exclusion, in rem rights, and indirectness. These theorists assert that, twentieth century wisdom notwithstanding, property is not a bundle of rights but rather is a law of things. Contrary to these theorists, this Article argues that the bundle-of-rights conceptualization remains useful both descriptively and normatively. First, the bundle-of-rights conceptualization produces more precise specification of the legal relations of parties in both simple and complex property arrangements. Second, it clarifies the normative choices that underlie decisions about property. Third, it focuses attention on the quality of the relationships that property constructs. Finally, bundle-ofrights analysis generally forces information forward. Because the information produced by the granular analysis of property bundles is useful, the bundle-of-rights metaphor should not be displaced or abandoned. Indeed, the complexity of contemporary property issues—and in particular their growing connection to the alternative legal fields of privacy and intellectual property—makes the bundle-of-rights conceptualization all the more fruitful.
dc.format.extent45 pages
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofFaculty/ Researcher Works
dc.relation.haspartUniversity of Cincinatti Law Review, Vol. 82, Iss. 1 (2014)
dc.relation.isreferencedbyUniversity of Cincinnati College of Law
dc.rightsAll Rights Reserved
dc.subjectRight of property
dc.subjectEvaluation
dc.subjectLaws, regulations and rules
dc.subjectMetaphor
dc.titleRescuing the Bundle-of-Rights Metaphor in Property Law
dc.typeText
dc.type.genreJournal article
dc.relation.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/6688
dc.ada.noteFor Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu
dc.description.schoolcollegeTemple University. James E. Beasley School of Law
dc.temple.creatorBaron, Jane B.
refterms.dateFOA2021-07-08T19:53:07Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Baron-JournalArticle-2014.pdf
Size:
376.0Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record