Read on Twitter
It seems to me that this deserves a proper conflict-of-laws analysis. First, in what forum does the question arise? I'd think it unlikely that this issue arises in a human court. So vampire court it is. 1/ https://twitter.com/stejormur/status/1338446363999264769
Then let's assume there's only one vampire jurisdiction. As a rule of substantive law then there is the rule "Doo not enter without invitation". Clearly, this rule raises an incidental question. "Invitation" as a rule element is not purely factual, it relates to a legal fact. 2/
What legal rule then determines the existence of an invitation. Here, I think we have two choices. First, the incidental question "is there an invitation?" can be answered autonomously or by reference to a general system of law that is used in other contexts as well. 3/
In order for landlord-tenant law to apply, it would have to be the second option. But not only that, the vampire choice-of-law rules would also need to characterize the invitation question as a question of property law. It's not self-evident that's the case. 4/
Vampire law might very well decide to characterize these invitation questions differently. It might even contain a unilateral choice-of-law rule that always subjects invitation issues to vampire law. 5/
If it does characterize it as a property law issue, does vampire choice of law follow the lex situs rule? Most human choice of law does, but I guess we don't know. Anyways, just some points to ponder before we jump to the application of English common law concepts 6/
such as the covenant of quiet enjoyment or even the Roman law notion of ownership (Does it exist in English law? Discuss). 7/7
