Introduction

Property is perhaps the most important and the most complicated and extensive branch of
modern law. Under this field of law, the rights, claims, duties and obligations of the parties
involved with any kind of property become the subject of study.

Chameleon-hued was the expression once applied by Hohfeld to the term license in a
passage where he added that it was a word of convenient and seductive obscurity; and the
task of dealing at all adequately with the intricate and confused subject would, in and of itself,
require a long article. The subject is indeed intricate and confused; and yet it is one which
particularly appealed to his keenly analytical mind and which was peculiarly susceptible of
instructive treatment under methods of rigid analysis.

Earlier, licence was described as the fact that a landowner communicated his consent to
anothers using his land; while at other times licence was described the legal relationship
whereby the other could use the land without being liable for trespass. In present times,
licence is referred to as a validation by the owner of the land for the acts of the licensee which
would otherwise be committed unlawfully.

The traditional concepts of bare or mere licenses, licenses coupled with an interest or
with a grant, licenses acted upon or executed, and licenses upon valuable
consideration were used earlier. Most of these concepts assumed certain differences in the
legal consequences of various transactions, and therefore furnished a poor starting point for
determining what the legal consequences of a given transaction should be. It also made it
easy to overlook important license transactions which these phrases did not suggest.

A factual classification of licenses which starts with the differences in the parties intentions
will place in one group the transactions wherein the parties have contemplated that the
interests created should be revocable. But the transactions where the parties have
contemplated irrevocable interests require further subdivision. A large number of licenses are
not at all lacking in formality; they are called licenses solely to distinguish them from leases.
Another large group of licenses are so called because they are oral; previous discussion has
been confined almost entirely to these. Licenses of another group present a different problem
because they are written but unsealed. Still other licenses are so called, although they are in
writing .and under seal, because they lack technical conveyance language.

According to some scholars, the legal instrument of License in immovable properties was
developed to deal with the legal complications of lease and rental rights under Indian law. In
particular, this legal instrument was developed to enable property owners to restrict lessees
and evict them more easily. Still, many property owners that intended to protect themselves
by entering a leave and license agreement (i.e. a license agreement to use an immoveable
property for a certain purpose), find themselves facing court decisions ruling that their
agreement was in fact a lease agreement. Some of the mistakes made by such property
owners may be avoided.

In the present work, an attempt has been made to explain the meaning of licence and how a
licence is granted in India. In India, Indian Easements Act of 1882 governs such transactions.
Section 52, 53 and 54 are the relevant provisions to understand concept and grant of licence
in India. The following project work aims to differentiate between leases and licence along
with lease and easement. The main difference between a license and a lease is that a license
does not create a right in property itself, therefore eviction is practically immediate and hassle
free. It is important to have an understanding of the difference between a lease (that is a
tenancy) and a licence under general law so that one knows what one is dealing with in any
particular case.
 License
Definition of License
A licence is a personal right granted to a person to do something upon immovable property
of the grantor and does not amount to the creation of interest in the property itself. It is purely
a permissive right and is personal to the grantee. It creates no duties and obligations upon
the persons making the grant and is, therefore, revocable except in certain circumstances
expressly provided for in the Indian Easements act, 1882 itself. The licence, when granted,
has not other effect to confer liberty upon the licencee to go upon the land which would
otherwise be lawful.

A licence in the law of land is ordinarily a permission merely to do something on or to the

detriment of the land of the giver of the licence, the licensor. Occasionally it is a permission
to interfere with an easement or profit a prendre belonging to the licensor. It creates a
privilege in favor of the licencee.

A licence may be oral in which case, terms, conditions and the nature of the licence, can be
gathered from the purpose for which the licence is granted coupled with the conduct of the
parties and the circumstances which may have led to the grant of the licence. Every licence
is governed by the provisions under the Easements act.

A licence does not confer an interest or property in the thing, and though it may be coupled
with a grant which conveys an interest in property, licence by itself does not confer any
interest.

Where the parties entered into a partition agreement and divided the property giving
themselves certain rights, it would not amount to a licence.

The negative definition of licence under Indian law makes it necessary that before a right can
be shown to be a licence only, it must be proved not to be an easement or an interest in the
property.

Licence under English Law

According to English Law, a licence is purely a personal privilege or right enabling the
licencee to do something on the land of the licensor which would otherwise be unlawful. It is
an excuse by reason of the consent of the licensor for doing an act which would otherwise
be unlawful. It is merely a leave to do a thing, which enables the licencee to do lawfully what
he could not otherwise do except unlawfully.

A licence is merely a permission to do an act, which without such permission would amount
to a trespass. A dispensation or licence properly passeth no interest, nor alters or transfers
property in anything, but only makes an action lawful, which without it had been unlawful.

Licence is only a permission to do something on an immovable property like occupation, or

enjoying fruit thereof, or using it for some other purpose.
License is an official permit or permission to carry on some business or do some act which
without the license would be unlawful and the words license and permit are often used
synonymously. Licence is interchangeable with permission. Permission or licence is granted
for use of an immovable property for a particular purpose given by the granter to the grantee
which as of a necessity in his retention of dominant right of possession over the immovable
property with the granter.

Licence under Indian Law

In India, the Indian Easements Act, 1882 provides for law relating to licences in property law.
Section 52 of Indian Easements Act, 1882 defines Licence as under:

Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do
or continue to do, in or upon immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in
the absence of such rights, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or
an interest in the property, the right is called a licence.

From the above definition of licence, it seems that if a person himself has acquired a right or
interest in an immovable property through an instrument, the right conveyed in his favour in
that instrument, will not be licence. In India, judicial and legislative definitions of licence have
followed the English definitions of the term.

Under Section 52, if a person is given the right to use the immovable property in a particular
way under certain terms while retaining control and possession of the same, the person so
permitted is only a licencee. The question that arises in this context is that whether the
relationship is that of landlord-tenant or licensor-licensee. The relationship depends on the
intention of the parties that whether there was interest in the land or merely personal privilege
without any interest.

A licence cannot be granted only in favour of definite number of persons and not in favour of
fluctuating body or individuals. The agreement involved in the case, even if binding on the
defendants, cannot be considered to be at least a bilateral agreement between the
representatives of the two parties and containing reciprocal conditions. A licence is a personal
right given to the licencee and, therefore, Section 56 of the Easements Act, 1882 provides
that licence cannot be transferred by the licencee or exercised by his servants and agents.

The Supreme Court in Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor summed the concept
of Licence as under:

Under the aforesaid section, if a document gives only a right to use the property in particular
way or under certain terms while it remains in the possession and control of the owner thereof,
it will be a licence. The legal possession, thereof, continues to be with the owner of the
property, but the licencee is permitted to make use of the premises for a particular purpose.
But for the permission, his occupation would be unlawful. It does not create in his favour any
estate or interest in the property.

It important to take note of essential features of licence as under

1. A licence is not connected with the ownership of land / property but creates only a
personal right or obligation;
 2. Licence only creates a right or interest in the immovable property to do something,
under the authority of the grantor of the licence.
3. A licence cannot be transferred or assigned;
4. Licence is purely permissive right arising only by permission, express or implied, and
not by adverse exercise or in any other was;
5. It only legalize a certain act which would otherwise be unlawful and does not confer
any interest in the property itself in or upon or over which such act is allowed to be
done.
6. A licencee cannot sue outsiders in his own name.

Kinds of Licence
A licence may be of the following two kinds:

1. Bare licence which is purely a matter of personal privilege, and

2. Licence coupled with a grant or interest in the land.

Whether the act allowed to be done is a bare licence or something more than a licence
depends on the terms of the transaction.

When a landowner permits another to use the land under circumstances in which it is
reasonable to foresee that the licensee will spend money or otherwise change position in the
belief that the license will not be revoked, the license may become irrevocable. For example,
if a person owns two parcels, one of which has no access to a public road, sells the landlocked
parcel to another person, and gives him permission to build a driveway across the lot the
seller has retained, the license becomes irrevocable when the buyer invests in the property,
reasonably believing that the permission will not be revoked.

1. Bare Licence
A bare licence is a personal permission or consent, granted without consideration, to enter,
traverse over or be present upon the land of another. A bare licence is a licence granted
gratuitously which is not coupled with the grant of an interest in the land, e.g. the licence
which one necessarily grants to ones guests. Such a licence may be revoked at any time.

A bare licence is a defence to what would otherwise amount to the tort of trespass. Where
the licencee oversteps the ambit of the licence, his status will therefore be that of trespasser.
If the person is permitted to enter the land for one purpose but enters for another purpose, or
whilst on the land begins to pursue a different purpose to that which he is authorised, again
he becomes a trespasser, where it is known or understood that the occupier would not have
given consent.

If a person is allowed to do the act on the land without interfering with the nature of the land
or without taking any profits from the land, then it is a case of bare licence. Bare licences may
be created expressly or impliedly and no formalities are required a bare licence may arise
by implication from circumstances or conduct.
Bare licenses generally are not assignable (transferable) and are revocable at will by the
property owner. Bare licence becomes irrevocable when the licensee acting upon the licence
executes a work of a permanent character and incurs expense in doing so.

2. Licence coupled with a grant or interest in land

A licence coupled with a grant or interest in land arises where there is a permission to enter
onto anothers land for the purpose of removing something from that land (such as timber).
This licence combines the grant of an interest (such as a profit a prendre) with an ancillary
permission to enter the land to realise or exploit that interest.

A license coupled with an interest arises when a person acquires the right to take possession
of property located on someone elses land, as when a lender acquires the right to repossess
an automobile that is located on private property after the borrower has defaulted on a loan.

A licence may be coupled with the grant of an interest in the land, as when standing timber
is sold on terms that the purchaser is to sever the timber: the sale of the timber on these
terms implies the grant to the purchaser of a licence to enter the land in order to obtain the
timber. Such a licence is irrevocable so long as the interest to which it is annexed lasts, and
unless otherwise agreed it can be assigned.

If the person is allowed to take exclusive possession of the land, to plant trees over it, then it
is not a bare licence but it is a licence that is coupled with grant or interest in land. If the
licence gives the licensee a right to make a construction on land, it is not a bare license but
it is a licence coupled with an interest in land. In such a case, the licensee who has entered
possession after execution of the licence, is entitled to maintain a suit against the trespasser
who has dispossessed him.

Licenses coupled with an interest usually are both assignable and irrevocable, at least until
the holder of the license has had a reasonable time to retrieve the property that gave rise to
the license. Where such operative facts give a privilege accessory to and in aid of the exercise
of a power, or other legal interest, otherwise vested in the licensee.

Lease and Licence: Distinction

As defined by Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:

A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a
certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised,
or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically
or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on
such terms.
The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the
premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent.

The requirements for a lease are:

exclusive possession of a defined area of land,

for a fixed period (or series of periods) of time,
 with the intention to create an estate in land that is an interest in the land itself which
can be assigned or sold.

A license is simply a permission to use land. It allows someone access to the land of another
for an agreed purpose. It is an authority that justifies what would otherwise be a trespass. It
does not confer any interest in land.

Whether a transaction amounts to a lease or license, is a question that has been considered
in a whole host of judicial pronouncements and cases continue to be handed over. The
question that whether a transaction is lease or license depends upon the intention of the
parties and whether exclusive possession has been given or not.

The test to determine that whether a transaction is a lease or a license is:

1. The intention of the parties, which is to be gathered from the terms of the contract. If
the terms are not clear, then the surrounding circumstances shall determine the
intention of the parties.
2. In the absence of a written document and when somebody is in exclusive possession,
then the intention is to be gathered from other evidence such as exclusive possession
would be the most relevant circumstance to arrive at the intention of the parties at the
time of making the lease.
3. If dispute arises then intention to be gathered from the reading of the document as a
whole.
4. Lease or licence is matter of contract between the parties. The contract is to be
construed or interpreted on the well-laid principles for construction of contractual
terms.

In Booker v. Palmer, Lord Green stated that-

There is one golden rule to be followed is that law does not impute an intention to enter into
contractual relationships where the circumstances and the conduct of the parties negative
any intention of the kind.

In Cubb v. Lan, Lord Denning said that-

The question in all these cases is one of intention: Did the circumstances and conduct of the
parties show that all that was intended was that the occupier should have a personal privilege
with no interest in the land.

The definition in Section 52 of the Act referred to above does not refer to exclusive
possession. If there is no exclusive possession then the arrangement cannot be a lease and
must be a licence. The general rule is that the Court will look at the substance of the
agreement rather than the form in which it is expressed.

The major differences between lease and licence are:

A Lease is a transfer of right to enjoyment (exclusive possession) of that property by

the lessor the lessee, made for a certain term in consideration of a fee subject to the
terms set out in the lease agreement while a licence is the granting of a permission to
use the land in consideration of a fee subject to the conditions set out in the licence.
 A lease grants exclusive possession for a fixed period (term). A licence does not grant
exclusive possession.
A lease creates an interest in the land which can be transferred to the lessee for the
period of the lease. A licence does not create or transfer an interest in the land.
A lease can be transferred (assigned) to another party and if registered on the title is
binding on a new owner of the land. A licence is not transferable.
A lease is not revocable (other than subject to any conditions set out in the lease (e.g.
a redevelopment clause). A licence is revocable.

Licence and Easement: Distinction

As per Section 4 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882; easement is defined as right which
the owner or the occupier of certain land possesses, as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of
that land, to do and continue to do something, or to prevent and continue to prevent
something being done, in or upon, or in respect of certain other land not his own.

An easement is right or interest in immovable property for the land belonging to another.
When once an easement is validly created, it is annexed to land. The benefit of it passes with
the dominant tenement and the burden of it passes with the servient tenement to every
person into whose occupation the dominant and servient tenements respectively come.

The major points of difference between an easement and a licence are the following:

1. An easement is a right appertaining to property while a license is only a personal right.

2. An easement is a right in rem and is enforceable by all and against all into whose
hands the servient and the dominant tenements respectively may come, while a
license is only a right in personam and therefore, not so enforceable.
3. An easement can be assigned with the property to which it is annexed, but a license
cannot be assigned at all except where it is a license to attend a place of public
entertainment.
4. A right of easement is not revicable at the will of the grantor while a license is so
revocable, except where the grantor is stopped by his conduct from exercising the
power of revocation conferred by law.
5. A license is permissive right traceable to a grant from the licensor either expressly or
impliedly. But an easement is acquired either by assertive enjoyment by the dominant
owner or by a negative covenant between the parties or by grant or by statute.
6. An easement may be positive or negative in character, a license is invariably positive
and cannot be negative in character. It may be that there are cases in which a negative
pbligation might be cast on the licensor with the object of protecting a licence coupled
with a grant but such obligation is due to the grant accompanying the licence and not
to the licence per se.
 Granting of Licence
The provisions relating to granting of licence are the same as those governing the easements.
The provisions relating to granting of licence in India are Sections 53 and 54 of the Indian
Easements Act, 1882.

Two preliminary questions that arise when entering into a Leave and Licence agreement are
who can grant a licence and how a licence is granted.

The first question is answered in section 53 of The Indian Easements act, 1882, that states
that a licencee may be granted by anyone in the circumstances and to the extent in and to
which he may transfer his interests in the property affected by the licence. In other words,
one cannot grant a licence and one cannot receive a licence if the licensor does not possess
a sufficient lawful interest in the property.

The second question is answered in section 54 of The Indian Easements act, 1882, that
states that a the grant of a licence may be express or implied from the conduct of the grantor,
and an agreement which purports to create an easement, but is ineffectual for that purpose,
may operate to create a licence. This definition is very important. Owners of properties should
mind that their behavior may create a licence, even without a formal licence agreement.

Licence is, therefore, a grant of a right to do something upon an immovable without creating
interest in the property. It is therefore, distinguishable from an allied grant such as a lease or
an easement. Both lease and easement create an interest in the property. Licence is only a
permission to do something on an immovable property like occupation, or enjoying fruit
thereof, or using it for some other purpose.

Power to grant a licence

Section 53 provides for the power to grant a licence. It states that A licence may be granted
by anyone in the circumstances and to the extent in and to which he may transfer his interests
in the property affected by the licence.

Power to grant a licence is co-extensive with the power to transfer. A man can grant a license
in the circumstances and to the extent he can transfer his interest in the property affected
thereby. The power to grant a license is only a personal right attaching only a personal
obligation on the grantor is more extensive than the power to impose an easement which
affects the property itself.

A licence by a mortgagee or co-tenant who is lawfully in the sole possession and enjoyment
of the property, to do a thing which he could himself lawfully do is a valid licence. Anyone
who can transfer property even if he is not the owner can grant a licence. The licence can
also be revoked by such a person.

The grant of licence may be express or implied which can be inferred from the conduct of the
grantor. Under Section 52, there is a grant of the right made by the grantor. Without a grant
in the general sense, no licence can be created.
An agreement for licence can subsist and continue to take effect only so long as the licensor
continues to enjoy a right, title and interest in the premises. On the termination of the right ot
the title, the agreement for licence comes to an end. If the licensor is an tenant, the agreement
for licence by him terminates with the tenancy, and the licence ceases to be licensee.

In order to grant a licence, the licensor need not be the owner of the property. The tenancy
rights are also immovable rights of the tenant and therefore, he can grant the licence. But by
virtue of Section 53, the tenant can grant the licence subject to the limitation and the extent
to which he may be able to transfer the interest, viz., the tenancy rights. A tenant is
empowered to transfer his interest but he cannot do so beyond the term of his lease.

Form of Licence Express or Implied

Section 54 provides that The grant of a licence may be express or implied from the conduct
of the grantor, and an agreement which purports to create an easement, but is ineffectual for
that purpose, may operate to create a licence.

A licence is notionally created where a person is granted the right to use the premises without
becoming entitled to the exclusive possession of them or the circumstances and conduct of
the parties show that all that was intended was that the grantee should be granted a personal
privilege with no legal interest.

A mere licence passes no interest nor alters or transfers property in any way but merely
makes an act lawful which without would have been unlawful. It is necessary that the licence
be in writing or registered. Where the licence is coupled with a grant of immovable property
or of an interest in immovable property, which is compulsorily registrable, it must be in writing
or registered.

Implied Licence

A licence may be implied from the conduct of the licensor whereby he allows something to
be done on his land by another person who believes the land to be his own. A plea of implied
licence may be based on the right of equity to intervene, must have for its foundation either
a contract or the existence of some fact which the legal owner is stopped from denying.

An everyday-life example of implied licence is in the case of a shopkeeper in the invitation to

customers to enter his premises to do business.

Licence may also be implied from the conduct of the licensor which induces in the mind of
the licensee a reasonable belief that the former consents to the latters doing of certain acts,
the doing of which would have been unlawful but for such consent.

The consent may also consist of words, spoken or written or acts and omissions on the part
of the licensor that would invoke reasonable belief in the mind of the licensee that what he
does is either actively approved or not objected to by the licensor.

A licence to enter upon the land of another is not implied by the sale of goods which are
stored upon the land, by a person other than the person against whom it is claimed, nor the
failure of the tenant to keep the premises in repairs authorises the landlord to enter upon it
for that purpose, in the absence of a contract to that effect.
 Express Licence

An express license is one which in direct terms authorizes the performance of a certain act;
as a license to keep a tavern given by public authority. Express licences govern more specific
situations where the permission has been expressly directed towards a particular individual.
An example is where owner invites guests for dinner or to stay in a room on his property. The
licence governs only the specified period of the stay and any re-entry after that period without
further permission would constitute trespass.

It is important to note that a person cannot grant a licence to himself or to himself jointly with
another. Therefore, it must be granted by an owner of the property who is different from the
licensee.

As a grant forms the basis of an easement as well as a licence, an agreement which purports
to create an easement may operate to create a licence only if it is ineffectual for certain
reasons to create such easement. As both an easement and licence legalize acts which
would have been unlawful otherwise, both go hand in hand but while licence stops, an
easement goes further and incorporates itself with the property of the grantee, the beneficial
enjoyment of which is its principal characteristics. The rule in England where an easement is
created only by grant under seal has a very salutary effect. In India, the cases between
landlords and tenants, in which a grant by the former to the latter, of a right of easement, is
ineffectual to create an easement in the strict sense of the term, are covered by this rule.
 Conclusion
Such a statement does not reveal whether it is a transaction or a legal relationship. If the
latter, it may be revocable or irrevocable, and may have, in either case, a variety of other
characteristics. If a transaction, it may be unwritten, or written but unsealed, or couched in
unusual terms, or designed for a special purpose; its legal consequences will vary with these
circumstances.

The conclusion that the term license implies nothing does not mean that there is no law of
licenses. There is license law, but it must be stated in terms of particular types of cases.
Where a licensor gives no reason to expect otherwise, the licensees privileges can be
terminated at will. Where a licensor manifests an intention that the privilege shall be more
enduring, the consequences depend upon other circumstances. If it offends no legal policy,
the license may create a true easement. If it offends the rule requiring a sealed instrument, it
will probably create an easement, but the licensee can obtain relief only through equitable
procedure. If enforcement of the license would encumber the land with relatively useless
burdens, neither the parties expectations nor their formalities nor their expenditures will give
the interest the characteristics of an easement.

This simple rationalization of license cases is largely impeded by the ambiguous usage of
license to signify sometimes a transaction, sometimes a relationship. All the recent writers
agree that one of the usages should be adopted and the other rejected, but disagree on which
to adopt and which to reject.

The usage of license to signify a transaction is widely used by laymen, who rarely think in
terms of jural relations. It is often compared with the terms lease and easement, which usually
signify certain kinds of transactions. So long as the legal vocabulary contains the nouns
licensor and licensee to designate the parties to the transaction, and the verb to license for
the process of transacting, it is fanciful to imagine that lawyers will refrain from describing
these operative facts as a license.

The usage of license to signify a relationship can be more readily eliminated. Usage
of the additional term license suggests distinctions which seldom exist. The recognition
of legal relations as distinguished from operative facts demands terms which suggest
the distinction, just as fee and leasehold suggest something different from lease.
 RELATED CASES
[i] Mini Peter Philips v. Dina J. S. Fanibanda, 2008 (1) AIR Bom. R. 475

[ii] Charles E. Clark, Licences in Real Property Law, 21 Columbia Law Review 757-
782 (1921)

[iii] Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors., 1987 AIR 1242

[iv] Mohd. Yusuf v. Suraj Bali Singh, AIR 1916 All. 219

[v] P. Perumal Naidu v. Krishnaswamy Naidu, AIR 1998 Mad. 148

[vi] Ajab Singh v. Shital Puri, AIR 1993 All. 138

[vii] Head v. Hartley, 42 Ch. D. 461

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Clifford v. Neil, (1896) 12 App. Div. 17

[x] Thomas v. Sorrell, (1673) Vaughan 33

[xi] Parsons v. People, (1904) 32 Colo. 221

[xii] A. N. Agrawal v. Hukum Singh, 1997 (1) AWC 279

[xiii] Krishna v. Rayappa, 4 Mad. H.C.R. 98

[xiv] B. B. Katiyar, Law of Easements and Licences, 14th Edn. (New Delhi: Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2012) 885

[xv] Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor, AIR 1959 SC 1262

[xvi] Khan Saheb Muhammad Khan v. State of Orissa, ILR 1954 Cut. 671

[xvii] Section 62, Indian Easements Act

[xviii] Supra note 7

[xix] Goldsack v. Shore, (1950) 1 KB 708

[xx] Hillen and Pettigrew v. ICI (Alkali) Ltd, (1936) AC 65

[xxi] R v. Pratt, (1855) 119 ER 3198

 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
FACULTY OF LAW
PROJECT ASSIGNMENT
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT

HUMBLY SUBMITTED BY-

UMANG DIXIT
2nd year, B.A.LLB(HONS.) REGULAR
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1
LICENSE 3
DEFINITION
LICENSE UNDER INDIAN LAW
KINDS OF LICENSE 5
BARE
LICENSE COUPLED WITH A GRANT OR
INTEREST IN LAND
LEACE AND LICENSE: DISTINCTION 6
GRANTING OF LICENSE 9
FORM OF LICENSE: EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED
CONCLUSION 12
RELATED CASES 13