G L Borrowman's suggested amendment to the law (May 6) would not, unfortunately, cure the central problem with feudal superiorities - the sheer uncertainty of where you stand with the feudal superior. While the burden of proof would shift on to the superior there would be continuing uncertainty as to whether a challenge would be made.

At what point is the superior presumed to have become aware of the alterations? What time thereafter would he be allowed to mount a challenge? Would conveyancers readily certify a title to banks or building societies without first checking the superior's position?

It is true that the feuar can challenge the superior at the Lands Tribunal but that is a time-consuming and costly exercise. In many old superiorities it is, in any event, difficult to know exactly who is now the superior.

Many of these superiorities have changed hands many times. After the 1970 Act many superiors lost interest in the superiorities after the feu-duties were redeemed. There is now, however, a market in old superiorities for those wishing to make money from minutes of waiver and other conditions. Some feuars may find themselves faced with intransigent superiors many years after purchasing their homes. How many could really face a costly court action over a superior's contention that he could prove non-acquiescence?

The only sensible way forward is to do away with the whole system and move into a modern system of land ownership. If there is an argument that someone who, say, sells part of their garden for a house should be able to impose some conditions on use (and that is debatable) then this could be accomplished by contract restricted to the time the seller remains the owner of the adjacent property.

This seems to me to make more sense than creating a feudal superiority that lasts forever and can pass into the hands of someone who has no interest whatsover in the area.

Michael Weir,

8 Latch Road, Brechin. May 6.