Private lawyers owe a particular debt of gratitude to Hohfeld, given their widespread use of his scheme. An example is equitable rescission, where the entitlement to rescind a voidable transfer is now widely understood to be a Hohfeldian legal power. Yet, though scholars have been quick to use Hohfeld’s concept of legal power, they have given little sustained thought to what he meant by ‘volitional control’ and how we might identify it within the law. The result is that certain areas of law have been mislabelled as ‘power conferring’, most notably equitable rescission. This article seeks to unpack Hohfeld’s concept of ‘volitional control’ as terminological shorthand for the coincidence of two distinct elements: (i) the power holder’s normative intention to effect the relevant legal change; and (ii) her decision to effect that change as exhibited in power-exercising conduct. By these lights, the rescinding claimant does not have a legal power to rescind.

中文翻译：

---

是“纯粹的股权”废除法律权力吗？解开霍菲尔德的“意志控制”概念

私人律师特别感谢霍菲尔德，因为他们广泛使用了他的计划。一个例子是衡平撤销，撤销可撤销转让的权利现在被广泛理解为霍菲尔德的法律权力。然而，尽管学者们很快就使用了霍菲尔德的法律权力概念，但他们几乎没有考虑过他所说的“意志控制”是什么意思，以及我们如何在法律范围内识别它。结果是某些法律领域被错误地贴上了“权力授予”的标签，最显着的是公平撤销。本文试图将 Hohfeld 的“意志控制”概念解释为两个不同要素的巧合的术语简写：(i) 权力持有者实现相关法律变更的规范意图；(ii) 她决定实施权力行使行为中表现出的改变。根据这些情况，撤销请求人没有撤销的法律权力。