How have courts interpreted the meaning of the phrase "continues or is in possession"?

Alberta, Canada


The following excerpt is from General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Canada Ltd. v. Owens, 1993 CanLII 7117 (AB QB):

The starting point is what is said to be the "first reported question" that arose about the meaning of the phrase "continues or is in possession", being Mitchell v. Jones (1905), 24 N.Z.L.R. 932.

Other Questions


How have the courts interpreted the meaning of the ABCA? (Alberta, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of a contract where the contract is expressly or implication forbidden by common or statute law? (Alberta, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of the word “right and true” in the context of a contract? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word "including" in legislation? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the phrase “care, custody or control” in the context of an insurance policy? (Alberta, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the doctrine of "abandoning possession" in a commercial lease agreement? (Alberta, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of the word "contract" in the context of an enforceable contract? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word “intensely clearness” in the context of legislative intent? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the Charter and the role of the courts? (Alberta, Canada)
How have the provisions of section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 been interpreted and interpreted by the courts? (Alberta, Canada)

There are no other similar questions at this time.