Byggnad på fri grund

13:53 Mar 4, 2010 

Thanks for pointing out the rule. I used the Discussion entry section only because space is so limited for responses to responses. I'll use notes to my own answers from now on as the means to do this.

13:49 Mar 4, 2010 

Be careful, Charles, of the site rules. Your cheer-leading, however oak-sturdy, may be out of line: 3.4 The only acceptable means of commenting on another's answer is by using the peer comment feature. Using the discussion area, the answer posting form or the answer explanation box to comment on another's suggestions is not allowed.

12:11 Mar 4, 2010 

I should clarify that I disagreed with Tom Thumb because the building is not automatically part of a freehold on which it sits. This is perhaps a picky technical point, but it could be there with the permission of the freehold owner but not intended to become part of the freehold. An example might be a temporary construction office or the like, as suggested in the Swedish source. (I do recognize that the use of the conjunctive "och" undercuts this analysis a little here.)

11:58 Mar 4, 2010 

The Swedish term in question refers to the building and land as physical things, not to the legal interest in them. That's why I am agreeing with Sven Petersson and disagreeing with Tom Thumb. There's a way of saying what I mean in Latin, but I'm not up to the task.