The real estate regime requires a thorough and elaborate civil legal registration of relations of acquisition of rights to real estate, including in the form of guarantees of fulfillment of the composition of the acquisition of rights. At the same time, in the domestic legal order there is a problem of subordination of the real estate regime to the regime of movable things, which arose due to the absence of the category of real estate in the Soviet law, from which follows a fundamentally wrong attempt to protect the rights of the acquirer of real estate only by mandatory legal means arising from the contract of sale. Comparative legal analysis can be one of the methods of determining the limits of constructing the forms of protection of the real estate purchaser’s interest. Thus, the study of the private‑law methodology of construction of property rights and property turnover in general, which is diametrically opposed to the domestic legal order, will allow to identify the main differences and similarities of legal registration of the composition of the acquisition of rights to immovable things. In this article a complex analysis of the judicial practice of Great Britain in search of forms of protection of interest in the acquisition of real estate, providing priority of acquisition over third parties and expressed, first of all, in special constructions of the law of equity (law of equity) is carried out. It is revealed that due to the presence of stylistic peculiarities of the development of English law, these constructions cannot be incorporated without changing their content in pandect‑type legal orders. The possibility of protecting the interest expressed in the presentation of real claims (in rem) to ensure the transfer of rights to a land plot, in equity, depends solely on the judicial discretion in each case, ad hoc. An additional obstacle is the premise of economic analysis that both the obligation as a promise and the seller’s sale by a third party of the “promised” property to the original purchaser qualify as an “efficient breach” (efficient breach) because the subsequent purchaser could better and more efficiently dispose of the property. In connection with these circumstances, it is concluded that the English experience of designing a mechanism to protect the proper performance of the acquisition of rights to immovable property in Russian law cannot be applied.
Konstantin N. Shemiakin (Wed,) studied this question.