TimKowal wrote: Although the landlord will own title, the tenant has certain substantial property rights, even absent ownership of title. Regrettably the position with respect to land is more complicated. Concurrent interests may exist in

I read the review which I thought was a trifle unfair - beware anyone trashing folk etymologies - it is usually someone with an equally dubious explanation! Where I thought the series did fall down was the disproportionate time spent on

Or equally. "Let's cast an eye over it."

I have read this thread with interest. Everyone knows that language changes. Sometimes words that mean the same thing diverge to take up separate meanings and sometimes words with the same meaning converge to mean the same thing. Whilst the change

"Title" implies that you are the person legally entitled to dispose of the goods to a third party. "Ownership" (where it is separated from title) implies that you are the person entitled to use the thing owned. Contracts for the sale of goods

I agree that the meaning can differ according to trade or industry and the words are not "terms of art". I suggest the following general distincions can be made: A guarantee implies that you will perform the contract if the party you are

Quite apart from the linguistic aspect, the law of England (I cannot speak for anywhere else) has the "double indemnity" rule, which means that you cannot be tried twice on the same facts. This extends, I believe, to being tried for perjury when

I feel the opposite. In this context "free" means "for nothing" and so "for free" is equivalent to "for for free". I checked in my dictionary ( Collins ) which indicated that "for free" is non-standard.