Talk:Quit-rent

In English?

Is there any chance somebody could re-write this article in English? It makes as much sense as the Treaty of Lisbon. --86.44.203.219 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in English simple enough for "Joe Average" to understand. However, some articles, such as this one, and the one on the Treaty of Lisbon, are on subjects that are a bit technical. The English looks fine to me. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quit-rent / Rentcharge / Tax

Can there be some explanation on the difference between a rentcharge and a quit rent. To a "Joe Average" (like me) they appear to be one and the same - or perhaps that a quit rent is a subset of rentcharge. If you see this Act from Ireland Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 - "The expression “rentcharge” means tithe or tithe rentcharge, or other periodical payment or rendering in lieu of or in the nature of tithe, or any fee farm rent, rent seck, quit rent, chief rent, rent of assize, or any other perpetual rent or annuity granted out of land". OTOH - the Law of Property Act 1925 (UK), s191 (1) (a) & (c) - in its original form appears to treat quit rents and rentcharges as different concepts.

Should the two articles be merged? If not then they at least deserve a 'See also' to each other.

Another thing - it's been suggested that a quit rent should not be regarded as a tax. Perhaps not surprisingly - in Australia a landholder went to court arguing that to impose an obligation to pay moneys to the Crown was to impose taxation without parliamentary sanction, which is illegal - Attorney-General (NSW) v Brown [1847]. The Supreme Court of New South Wales basically decided that quit rents fell into the category of tenurial services. Meaning quit rents (like any rent) are more like "fees charged for services rendered than taxes and, just as the Crown might lawfully impose tolls, port and market dues without parliamentary sanction, so also must it be assumed to have authority to exact a quid pro quo in respect of its grants of proprietary rights". The quote's from Enid Campbell whose paper: "The Quit Rent System in Colonial New South Wales" is an excellent read BTW. 1.43.41.96 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are quite different legal things. Not sure there is any particular need for a 'see only': the most obvious similarity is that the two concepts both include the word 'rent' as part of their name. Could well be worth adding more information on the Australian situation based on the paper you've listed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wont make any changes to the main article myself. I'm a history buff - not a lawyer & would probably just make a mess. I just found this term when looking at a land subdivision from the 1840s. At least I've provided some material for those who know what they're doing. 1.43.41.96 (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]