美国财产学论文代写：财产所有权
亨廷福德-霍布斯的案件是关于离婚夫妇之间财产所有权的问题。这对夫妇在结婚时购买了房产，但只有原告声称他们是当时唯一的收入来源。原告还解释说，他们对这栋房子的修缮作出了贡献，现在对分割房屋产权资本的有效性提出了质疑，因为没有任何声明表明双方都有权获得该财产(Tee,2013年)。
法官斯莱德和另外两名法官根据两党签署的主要文件，裁决亨廷福德- v -霍布斯。两党签署的主要文件表明，如果任何一方死亡(Hudson,2014年)，众议院的股权资本将向幸存的一方进行。这一提交清楚地说明，他们认为这是一个合资企业，在签署时双方都有义务加入合作伙伴关系。根据这一提交，法官在本案中裁定，尽管对方没有以其他方式作出贡献，但该财产应该是共同所有权。支付的人只提供资金，他们的合资协议也被保留。在这里，公平被认为是为了保护签署协议的各方的利益或意图(Ramjohn,2013年)。尽管存在资本贡献差异，但他们有着共同的意图，而这种意图在这里得到了保护。这一案例意义重大，因为它强调了股权着眼于意图而不是形式。本案例的裁决已适用于Oxley – v – Hiscock,CA，[2004]2 FLR 669和Evans – v – Hayward,CA，[1995]2 FLR 511
美国财产学论文代写：财产所有权
A case Huntingford -v- Hobbs was presented regarding the ownership of property between divorced couples. The couple had purchased the property when they were married however only the plaintiff claims that they were the only source of income during that time period. The plaintiff also explained that they contributed towards the renovation of the house and now questions the validity of splitting the equity capital of the house, as there was no expressed declaration stating that both parties are entitled to the property (Tee, 2013).
Judge Slade along with two other judges ruled Huntingford -v- Hobbs based on the primary submission signed between the two parties. The primary submission that was signed between the two parties state that the equity capital of the house will go towards the surviving party if any one of the party die (Hudson, 2014). This submission clearly elucidates that they were considering this as a joint venture the intent at the time of signing was that both parties obliged to joining partnership. Based on this submission the judges ruled in the case Huntingford -v- Hobbs that the property should be joint ownership even though the other party did not contribute in the form of capital the court assumed that they would have contributed in other ways. The person that was paying was only providing capital and their joint venture agreement was held. Here equity is seen to protect the interests or the intent behind the parties who signed the agreement (Ramjohn, 2013). Despite the capital contribution differences they shared a common intent and that intent is protected here. This case is very significant as it highlights the notion that equity looks to the intent rather than to the form. The ruling in this case has been applied to cases Oxley -v- Hiscock, CA, [2004] 2 FLR 669 and Evans -v- Hayward, CA, [1995] 2 FLR 511
