Crystals and Mud in Property Law, 40 Stanford Law Review 577 (1988)
Property law, and especially the common law of property, has always been heavily laden with hard-edged doctrines that tell everyone exactly where they stand. Default on paying your loan installments? Too bad, you lose the thing you bought and your past payments as well. Forget to record your deed? Sorry, the next buyer can purchase free of your claim, and you are out on the street. Sell that house with the leak in the basement? Lucky you, you can unload the place without having to tell the buyer about such things at all.
In a sense, hard-edged rules like these—rules that I call "crystals"—are what property is all about. If, as Jeremy Bentham said long ago, property is "nothing but a basis of expectation," then crystal rules are the very stuff of property: their great advantage, or so it is commonly thought, is that they signal to all of us, in a clear and distinct language, precisely what our obligations are and how we may take care of our interests. Thus, I should inspect the property, record my deed, and make my payments if I don't want to lose my home to unexpected physical, legal, or financial impairments. I know where I stand and so does everyone else, and we can all strike bargains with each other if we want to stand somewhere else.
Date of Authorship for this Version
Rose, Carol M., "Crystals and Mud in Property Law" (1988). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 1826.