Rabbits in my flat

Miss_Samantha

Do you want to comment on your previous claim that the interpretation section "makes it clear that the Act only applies to allotments"?

I do not know if there are binding precedents. If there are none the courts interprets the law based on the drafting.
Here the drafting is very clear: "any lease" for "any land". Instead of repeating your call for precedents perhaps you should explain why 'any' should not have the definition it has in all dictionaries.

parkrunner

I have no idea of the legalities of this. My only thought is why does someone sign a contract when they know that they are going to break one of the clauses and not actually knowing if the clause is enforceable or not.

bobobski

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Do you want to comment on your previous claim that the interpretation section "makes it clear that the Act only applies to allotments"?

Not really. I'm getting quite bored of this. I'm not entirely sure why you care so much about "winning" this debate but clinging onto little pieces of information which in isolation might appear to help your cause is not a good debate strategy; in fact it is the centrepiece of some straw man arguments. I have not intended to "attack" you but I have only tried to prevent OP from being completely misguided before having an important conversation with their landlord (or, by extension, management company).

However, your interesting straw man theory has made me think of another bad debating technique: reductio ad absurdum. If you read the one sentence interpretation section of the 1950 Act as two separate sentences, then the second "sentence" doesn't limit at all where its "abolish[ment on] restrictions on the keeping of hens and rabbits" applies. So logically then, you can keep hens and rabbits on aeroplanes, in cafes, in school and universities, in hospitals etc. Awesome, it applies everywhere! /sarcasm.

OP: I wish you good luck in sorting out the situation. If you intend to use statute to help you, might I suggest you engage a solicitor?

davidmcn

bobobski wrote: »

I will repeat my point and what Adrian has said: do you have an example of the courts interpreting this Act the way you suggest it should be interpreted?

I've checked Westlaw, and there are no citations for any reported case referring to the section. So no precedent one way or another.

bobobski wrote: »

If you read the one sentence interpretation section of the 1950 Act as two separate sentences, then the second "sentence" doesn't limit at all were its "abolish[ment on] restrictions on the keeping of hens and rabbits" applies.

But Section 12 does, obviously, restrict it to leases etc for the non-commercial use of land.

If anybody cares to look at Hansard for the relevant Commons debate it's pretty clear that this section was stuck in the Act despite it not specifically relating to allotments (indeed, apparently some lobbying that allotments ought to be excluded from "any land"), and was intended to replace a wartime exemption for domestic livestock. Plenty of discussion about whether pigs ought to have been included too.

Of course, this argument may also lead the freeholder to enquire when the OP plans to eat their rabbits...

Miss_Samantha

bobobski wrote: »

Not really. I'm getting quite bored of this. I'm not entirely sure why you care so much about "winning" this debate but clinging onto little pieces of information which in isolation might appear to help your cause is not a good debate strategy;

I am not trying to win anything.

I am just trying to stick to facts and call out obviously made up posts. The point is to help readers, not to offer noise disguised as meaningful information.

bobobski wrote: »

Then the second "sentence" doesn't limit at all where its "abolish[ment on] restrictions on the keeping of hens and rabbits" applies. So logically then, you can keep hens and rabbits on aeroplanes, in cafes, in school and universities, in hospitals etc

This is non-sensical as quite clearly section 12 does state where it applies.

As said, a decent command of the English language (and of reasoning) is paramount.

davidmcn wrote: »

If anybody cares to look at Hansard for the relevant Commons debate it's pretty clear that this section was stuck in the Act despite it not specifically relating to allotments (indeed, apparently some lobbying that allotment ought to be excluded from "any land"), and was intended to replace a wartime exemption for domestic livestock. Plenty of discussion about whether pigs ought to have been included too.

Thanks for posting this.

davidmcn wrote: »

Of course, this argument may also lead the freeholder to enquire when the OP plans to eat their rabbits...

Obviously you do not have to eat the rabbits that you are allowed to keep.

davidmcn

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Glad you now agree that it is not about allotments.

Umm...I think I've been consistently arguing that it isn't about allotments.

bobobski

davidmcn wrote: »

I've checked Westlaw, and there are no citations for any reported case referring to the section. So no precedent one way or another.



But Section 12 does, obviously, restrict it to leases etc for the non-commercial use of land.

If anybody cares to look at Hansard for the relevant Commons debate it's pretty clear that this section was stuck in the Act despite it not specifically relating to allotments (indeed, apparently some lobbying that allotment ought to be excluded from "any land"), and was intended to replace a wartime exemption for domestic livestock. Plenty of discussion about whether pigs ought to have been included too.

Of course, this argument may also lead the freeholder to enquire when the OP plans to eat their rabbits...

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

I am not trying to win anything.

I am just trying to stick to facts and call out obviously made up posts. The point is to help readers, not to offer noise disguised as meaningful information.



This is non-sensical as quite clearly section does state where it applies.

As said, a decent command of the English language (and of reasoning) is paramount.



Glad you now agree that it is not about allotments.



Obviously you do not have to eat the rabbits that you are allowed to keep.

Excellent use of taking words out of context there by both of you. I explicitly stated that I was employing reductio ad absurdum. And you take that, remove the reference to the debating device, and create a straw man. Well done, I guess?

Miss_Samantha

davidmcn wrote: »

Umm...I think I've been consistently arguing that it isn't about allotments.

Sorry, I confused you with someone else.

AnotherJoe

19lottie82 wrote: »

I'm guessing the last time the rabbits were spotted they were taken down in a cage or similar. Next time all they have to do is take them down out of sight in a box or similar. It's not really hard.

Good point. A top hat perhaps?

magicpork

Samantha, can you let us know any kind of precedent?

Or if you're suggesting OP to taken on this case and write history then I guess OP's time and money should probably be spent somewhere else.