Property Law

Edited by Gregory S. Alexander, A. Robert Noll Professor of Law, Emeritus, Cornell University, US

‘Property is one of the most essential - and most misunderstood - concepts. The law of property is complex because the institution of private property fills a wide variety of functions, from providing security and autonomy to generating social welfare to supporting democratic political institutions. Understanding property is immeasurably enhanced by looking at it from a variety of normative perspectives and understanding how it has changed over time. These volumes address key issues by explaining debates among important theorists, all of whom have insights worth studying. The authors collected here have each put their mark on the field, and the editors have skillfully framed the fruitful debates they generated. A must-have compendium.’

• Contents:Volume IAcknowledgements viiIntroduction Gregory S. Alexander ixPART I CONCEPTUAL MATTERS: STRUCTURING OWNERSHIP1. William Blackstone (1979 [1765–1769]), ‘The Rights’ inCommentaries on the Laws of England, Volume II, Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press, 2 22. Wesley N. Hohfeld (1917), ‘Fundamental Legal Conceptions asApplied in Judicial Reasoning’, Yale Law Journal, 26 (8), June,710–70 33. A.M. Honoré (1961), ‘Ownership’, in A.G. Guest (ed.), OxfordEssays in Jurisprudence: A Collaborative Work, Chapter V, Oxford,UK and New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, 107–47 644. Thomas C. Grey (1980), ‘The Disintegration of Property’, inJ. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds), Nomos XXII:Property, New York, NY, USA: New York University Press, 69–85 1055. Henry E. Smith (2012), ‘Property as the Law of Things’, HarvardLaw Review, 125 (7), May, 1691–726 122PART II THE OBJECTS OF PROPERTY6. Charles A. Reich (1964), ‘The New Property’, Yale Law Journal, 73(5), April, 733–87 1597. Margaret Jane Radin (1987), ‘Market-Inalienability’, Harvard LawReview, 100 (8), June, 1849–937 2148. Cheryl I. Harris (1993), ‘Whiteness as Property’, Harvard LawReview, 106 (8), June, 1707–91 3039. Joseph William Singer (1988), ‘The Reliance Interest in Property’,Stanford Law Review, 40 (3), February, 611–751 38810. Sarah Harding (1999), ‘Value, Obligation and Cultural Heritage’,Arizona State Law Journal, 31 (2), February, 291–354 529PART III RULES VERSUS STANDARDS IN PROPERTY LAW11. Carol M. Rose (1988), ‘Crystals and Mud in Property Law’,Stanford Law Review, 40 (3), February, 577–610 59412. Henry E. Smith (2009), ‘Mind the Gap: The Indirect RelationBetween Ends and Means in American Property Law’, Cornell LawReview , 94 (4), May, 959–89 62813. Gregory S. Alexander and Eduardo M. Peñalver (2012), ‘The Rightto Exclude and its Limits’, in (eds) An Introduction to PropertyTheory , Chapter 7, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,130–55 659PART IV THE ECONOMIC APPROACH TO PROPERTY14. Harold Demsetz (1967), ‘Toward a Theory of Property Rights’,American Economic Review , 57 (2), May, 347–59 68615. Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed (1972), ‘Property Rules,Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral’,Harvard Law Review , 85 (6), April, 1089–128 69916. Robert C. Ellickson (1986), ‘Of Coase and Cattle: DisputeResolution Among Neighbors in Shasta County’, Stanford LawReview , 38 (3), February, 623–87 739PART V NON-ECONOMIC THEORIES OF PROPERTY17. Margaret Jane Radin (1982), ‘Property and Personhood’, StanfordLaw Review , 34 (5), May, 957–1015 80518. Gregory S. Alexander (2009), ‘The Social-Obligation Norm inAmerican Property Law’, Cornell Law Review , 94 (4), May,745–819 864Volume II Acknowledgements viiIntroduction: An Introduction by the editor appears in Volume IPART I THE NUMERUS CLAUSUS QUESTION1. Thomas W. Merrill and Henry E. Smith (2000), ‘OptimalStandardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus ClaususPrinciple’, Yale Law Journal, 110 (1), October, 1–70 22. Henry Hansmann and Reinier Kraakman (2002), ‘Property,Contract, and Verification: The Numerus Clausus Problem and theDivisibility of Rights’, Journal of Legal Studies, 31 (S2), June,S373–S420 72PART II COMMONS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS3. Michael A. Heller (1998), ‘The Tragedy of the Anticommons:Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets’, Harvard LawReview, 111 (3), January, 621–88 1214. James E. Krier (1992), ‘The Tragedy of the Commons, Part Two’,Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 15 (2), Spring, 325–47 189PART III ESTATES IN LAND AND FUTURE INTERESTS5. T.P. Gallanis (2003), ‘The Future of Future Interests’, Washingtonand Lee Law Review, 60 (2), Spring, 513–75 2136. W. Barton Leach (1938), ‘Perpetuities in a Nutshell’, Harvard LawReview, 51 (4), February, 638–71 2767. Lawrence W. Waggoner (1985), ‘Perpetuities: A Perspective onWait-and-See’, Columbia Law Review, 85 (8), December, 1714–29 310PART IV LANDLORD/TENANT RELATIONS8. Mary Ann Glendon (1982), ‘The Transformation of AmericanLandlord–Tenant Law’, Boston College Law Review, 23 (3), May,503–76 3279. Duncan Kennedy (1987), ‘The Effect of the Warranty ofHabitability on Low Income Housing: “Milking” and ClassViolence’, Florida State University Law Review, 15 (3), Fall,485–519 401PART V SERVITUDES10. Gerald Korngold (1988), ‘For Unifying Servitudes and DefeasibleFees: Property Law’s Functional Equivalents’, Texas Law Review,66 (3), February, 533–76 43711. Susan F. French (1982), ‘Toward a Modern Law of Servitudes:Reweaving the Ancient Strands’, Southern California Law Review,55 (6), September, 1261–319 481PART VI ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS12. Robert C. Ellickson (1973), ‘Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants,Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls’, University ofChicago Law Review, 40 (4), Summer, 681–781 54113. Carol M. Rose (1983), ‘Planning and Dealing: Piecemeal LandControls as a Problem of Local Legitimacy’, California LawReview, 71 (3), May, 837–912 642PART VII CONSTITUTION PROTECTION OF PROPERTY: THE TAKINGSISSUE14. Frank I. Michelman (1967), ‘Property, Utility, and Fairness:Comments on the Ethical Foundations of “Just Compensation”Law’, Harvard Law Review, 80 (6), April, 1165–258 71915. Thomas W. Merrill (1986), ‘The Economics of Public Use’, CornellLaw Review, 72 (1), November, 61–116 81316. Hanoch Dagan (1999), ‘Takings and Distributive Justice’, VirginiaLaw Review, 85 (5), August, 741–804 869