What possible benefits came from the study? What possible harms came from the study? Were the human participants able to consent to their involvement in the study? If so, what factors would influence their participation? How were the subjects for the study chosen? Do you think they were chosen fairly? How should rules related to human participant’s research be enforced? Was the treatment of humans in this case ethical? Explain your answer.
Historical Case Studies for Human Research
There is no doubt that case studies are a valuable and important form of research for all of the industries and fields that use them. However, along with all their advantages, they also have some disadvantages. Advantages of case studies include – intensive study. Case study method is responsible for intensive study of a unit. It is the investigation and exploration of an event thoroughly and deeply. This is one of the biggest advantages of the Genie case. Genie was a feral child. She was raised in complete isolation, with little human contact. Because of the abuse she withstood, she was unable to develop cognitively. However, her case was extremely important to child development psychology and linguistic theory. Because of her, we know that mental stimulation is needed for proper development. Disadvantage: inability to replicate – as demonstrated with the Genie case study, many studies cannot be replicated, and therefore, cannot be corroborated.
during these seasons. This would affect the continuance of possession because the courts held in Central Midlands v Leicester Dryens that physical control may not be temporary resulting in a break in the continuity. Therefore, although the crops are seasonal, if the fence remains up throughout the year and in effect excludes people from entering the property, then it may be sufficient evidence of control.
Eustace Lodge (EL)
Adverse possession of EL may be established when P started using the lodge for storage. P was a trespasser when he entered the lodge without permission however, if P started to lock the doors after storing his items, he could have argued that he had the intention to possess the lodge. Similarly, as this would exclude the world at large from entering the lodge, this would give him the intention to possess the land. Mr P did not start locking the doors though until 2006 which could be a sign that they remained open in 2005 which means anybody could have had access to the property.
P may be able to argue that adverse possession took place from 2006 as the actions are clearer here. As defined in Powell, factual possession is using and controlling the land in the same way that an owner would. This is demonstrated in the scenario by P renovating the estate as well as living in it. Furthermore, he shows the intention to posses EL by locking the estate gates and drives between the two lodges which suggests that P excludes everyone else including the owner from accessing these two lodges. As this is the only means of access to the land, then factual possession is also established. Knowledge by the council does not prevent an intention to possess. In addition, the letters sent by the council between 2006 and 2016 are not sufficient enough to stop time running against them.
OUTCOME
It is likely that P met the basic requirements in 2006 which is when adverse possession would begin. As this occurred after the Land Registration Act (LRA) 2002, there is a possibility that Eustace Lodge was registered because England and Wales was subject to compulsory registration in December 1990 and being a government body, Buckfordshire County Council may have adhered to this. However, there is also a chance of the property being unregistered because it is not expressed within the scenario and after 1990 not all property was registered.
The rules for both types of land differ as they are governed by the LRA 2002 for registered land after and the Limitations Act (LA) 1980 for unregistered land. If the land is registered, P must apply to the Land Registration Act (2002) in order to be registered as the new legal owner. This Act requires the claimant to make the applica