Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
Nope, because it doesn't state you can ONLY seize where the public has access. If you couldn't carry out the right in a domestic property it would be exempted in the same way as business premises are in that section.
|
I think it's open to interpretations and I am no legal eagle (nor like a legal illegal
)
The way I read it is that the business side is there as the public do have access to a lot of business premises (for example shops) and if a person owns the shop then they are covered the same as a private house. BUT a market stall holder can not be determined as a place of business just a point of sale.. Otherwise any illegal street seller of fake DVD's could specifiy that his corner of the street is his regular place of business and walk off with his conterfit goods..
TheDon do you have experience with this? or in a legal profession? Just that I understand your interpretation as well as my own but was wondering if your viewpoint had any knowledge as to why one interpretation is correct?