chapter  2
Is the reference to Pothier misleading given Art 2279 of the Code civil, which states that possession is equivalent to ownership in the case of the sale of movable property? If English law had the same rule as the one to be found in Art 2279, what effect would such a rule have to the facts of Lewis? 3 Does this case belong more to the law of property than to the law of obligations? (e) Error in verbis
Pages 1