CHARGE – FIXED AND FLOATING: AGNEW AND ANOTHER V. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, PRIVY COUNCIL (NEW ZEALAND), 5 JUNE 2001 (THE “BRUMARK” CASE) CHARGE AND HYPOTHEC AS FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENTS
CHARGE – FIXED AND FLOATING: AGNEW AND ANOTHER V. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, PRIVY COUNCIL (NEW ZEALAND), 5 JUNE 2001 (THE “BRUMARK” CASE) CHARGE AND HYPOTHEC AS FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENTS

Summary/Abstract: Our endeavour is dedicated to a few security devices. The first part of the current work is called “Words of Introduction”. The second portion takes into account a Privy Council case: Agnew and Another v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Privy Council (New Zealand), 5 June 2001 (the Brumark case). The third part briefly focuses on charge and mortgage. The fourth portion, in a succinct manner, describes the hypothec. The fifth and final part shows that charge and hypothec are functional equivalents.

• Details
• Contents