This book advocates, and develops, a critical account of the relationship between law and the largely neglected issue of ‘enjoyment’. Taking popular culture seriously – as a lived and meaningful basis for a wider understanding of law, beyond the strictures of legal institutions and professional practices – it takes up a range of case studies from film and literature in order to consider how law is iterated through enjoyment, and how enjoyment embodies law. Drawing on psychoanalytic theory, this book addresses issues such as the forced choice to enjoy the law, the biopolitics of tyranny, the enjoyment of law’s contingency, the trauma of the law’s symbolic codification of pleasure, and the futuristic vision of law’s transgression. In so doing, it forges an important case for acknowledging and analyzing the complex relationship between power and pleasure in law – one that will be of considerable interest to legal theorists, as well as those with interests in the intersection of psychoanalytic and cultural theory.

This book advocates, and develops, a critical account of the relationship between law and the largely neglected issue of ‘enjoyment’. Taking popular culture seriously – as a lived and meaningful basis for a wider understanding of law, beyond the strictures of legal institutions and professional practices – it takes up a range of case studies from film and literature in order to consider how law is iterated through enjoyment, and how enjoyment embodies law. Drawing on psychoanalytic theory, this book addresses issues such as the forced choice to enjoy the law, the biopolitics of tyranny, the enjoyment of law’s contingency, the trauma of the law’s symbolic codification of pleasure, and the futuristic vision of law’s transgression. In so doing, it forges an important case for acknowledging and analyzing the complex relationship between power and pleasure in law – one that will be of considerable interest to legal theorists, as well as those with interests in the intersection of psychoanalytic and cultural theory.

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1908 edition. Excerpt: ... CHAPTER II. ASSIGNMENTS. In the case of Gainsford v. Griffith (1 Saund. 59), decided in the reign of Charles II., the claim was for debt on a bond for the performance of covenants in an assignment of a lease to the plaintiff, in which assignment the defendant had covenanted that the lease then was a good and indefeasible lease, and that the plaintiff should quietly enjoy the premises during tbe whole residue of the term, without any let or disturbance of the defendant. A stranger ousted the plaintiff, who thereupon brought his action against the defendant for that at the time of making the assignment the lease was not a good lease. He succeeded, notwithstanding the contention of defendant that there was only one covenant, and that thereunder the defendant was only liable for the acts of himself and those claiming under him. The Court was of opinion that there were two covenants, one unqualified for title under which the plaintiff rightly claimed, and one for quiet enjoyment. At that time and thenceforth till the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), there was no implied covenant for title or for quiet enjoyment in an assignment of leaseholds or the reversion. If the parties intended either covenant to operate, they were obliged to insert the express terms agreed upon in the instrument, and the rights and liabilities would be measured by those terms. There was apparently an exception, where certain covenants were implied by the use of the words "bargain and sell" of land in Yorkshire (6 Anne, e. 35, ss. 30, 34; 8 Geo. 2, c. 6, s. 35), and there is by statute in certain cases an implication by the use of the word "grant." It was therefore usual, upon every conveyance of land for valuable consideration, whether subject to a lease or...