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 Cover Image

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

Author(s): Adrian Tamba
Subject(s): Civil Law, Commercial Law, Comparative Law
Published by: Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai
Keywords: charge; hypothec; mortgage; 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.

  • Issue Year: 66/2021
  • Issue No: 3
  • Page Range: 59-76
  • Page Count: 18
  • Language: English
Toggle Accessibility Mode