Nine‑Tenths of the Law: Possession as Procedural Advantage

The saying people remember, and what it misses

People like to say that "possession is nine‑tenths of the law."
It is usually explained with housing examples: the person living in the house has an edge, because it is an uphill battle to remove or evict them.

There is a grain of truth in that, but the more important point is broader.

In law and contracts, you are usually better off in a defensive posture than an offensive one. Possession matters because it decides who must go on offense.

Offense: asking the court to move for you

Going on offense means you want the court (or an arbitrator, or a regulator) to move on your behalf. You want them to change the status quo.

That almost always means:

• Filing a petition, claim, or action that meets technical rules.
• Working through complex procedures and deadlines.
• Producing records and evidence that actually prove your case.
• Paying for lawyers, filings, and often experts.
• Accepting real risk: you may lose, or you may simply fail to prove what is in fact true.

Being "right" in the ordinary‑language sense is not enough. You have to be right and able to carry your burden of proof, within the time, money, and procedural constraints the system imposes.

That is why so many strong grievances never become cases, and so many cases never reach judgment. The offensive path is expensive, slow, and uncertain.

Defense: the power of the status quo

By contrast, being on defense usually means you are protecting the status quo.

You may still have to show up and answer. You may still need records and evidence. But the other side carries more of the load:

• They must file first, correctly, and on time.
• They must push the case forward.
• They must convince the decision‑maker that the status quo should be changed.

In that sense, "possession" is not only about physical objects or real estate. In contracts, possession includes:

• Holding a deposit or collateral.
• Having been paid in advance.
• Controlling access to a service or asset.

If you already hold the money or the security, and a dispute arises, the other side usually needs to go on offense to dislodge it. They must spend the time and money to move the court. You can often defend your position instead of having to attack theirs.

The narrow exceptions: summary and default

There are real exceptions, and they prove the rule.

• Summary judgment. In some systems, if there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and the law clearly favours one side, a court can decide without a full trial. That can look like "nine‑tenths" in your favour. But most commercial disputes are messy: facts are contested, intent is argued, and procedure matters. Summary judgment is not the default path.

• Default judgment. If the other side simply does not appear or respond, the court may enter judgment against them. On paper, this is powerful. In practice, enforcing a default can still be its own battle, especially across borders or with thinly capitalized entities.

Both routes are valuable, but they are not what most people experience. Most real disputes are long, contested, and sensitive to who has to push and who can resist.

Designing for a defensive posture

This is not a call to become hostile or rigid. It is a recognition of how the system actually operates.

When you can, it is usually safer to structure your relationships so that:

• You are not constantly advancing value with no security.
• You hold some form of security—a deposit, collateral, or retention—so that if things go wrong, the other side must take the initiative to change the status quo.
• You back that posture with disciplined records so that, if they do go on offense, you can defend your position calmly and credibly.

If you invert that structure—if you are always the one who must sue, petition, or chase payment to become whole—you are relying on the offensive path: high effort, high cost, and real proof risk.

For a business owner, that is not an abstract point. It is a design decision:

• Either you insist on security up front to balance the risk of non‑performance; or
• You implicitly accept that you will bear the costs, delay, and uncertainty of taking action later.

If your customers refuse any meaningful security at the start, they are not just negotiating price. They are asking you to be their insurer. You may still choose to accept that in some cases, but you should do so with open eyes.

A business built on unsecured promises is fragile by design. One or two large failures can wipe out years of patient work. A business built on sensible security and good records still faces disputes, but it is less likely to be knocked off course by each one.

The law is not only about abstractions of right and wrong. It is also about procedure, posture, and who must move first. On that dimension, possession really is nine‑tenths—and for a business, treating it that way is a form of self‑preservation.