INTRODUCTION TO PROPERTY LAW - Essay Example

Kumar does not possess the right to claim any right to be given the first preference. In fact, the sale is a three stage process starting from contract, transfer of conveyance and finally registration of title (Lecture Note- formal acquisition of title). In Mr. Kumar’s case, even the contract was not done according to legally valid terms (Lecture note- must be in writing) and hence his claims hold no ground. At this juncture it is necessary to check the formal way to be adopted in developing a contract.

At the pre-contract stage, or before signing a contract, the buyer and the seller can negotiate and agree on the sale leading to a ‘subject to contract’. However, as far as a contract is not signed and exchanged in the usual way, the contracts are not legally binding (Lecture notes). As Goo (69) illustrates, similar was the case of Spottiswoode, Ballantyne & Co Ltd. V. Doreen Appliances Ltd. [1942] 2 KB 32 at 35; Keppel v. Wheeler [1927] 1 KB 577 at 584. In fact, according to 1975 Law Commission directive (Law Commission 65, January 1975, Para 4), before a formally signed contract, there is no legal validity for the ‘subject to contract’. . Then, the buyer can ask the seller to make necessary changes in the draft and can ask for explanations.

Thereafter, both the parties sign the contracts and exchange them. At this stage, the purchaser is normally required to make a deposit of 10% of the purchasing price. If the buyer fails to do the transactions in time, he loses the money. In this context, it is apt to note another example that Goo (73) describes i.e. Union Eagle v. Golden Achievement [1997] 2 WLR 341, PC) as in Sourcebook on the law. The above information proves the weak position of the claims made by Mr. Kumar. All the communication he had with Thorpe Trustees were in the pre-contract stage and one can say, they have agreed on the ‘subject to contract’.

However, as evident from Spottiswoode, Ballantyne & Co Ltd. V. Doreen Appliances Ltd, ([1942] 2 KB 32 at 35) this will not have any legal validity. In addition, the payment Mr. Kumar made was another mistake. Such a payment, not according to the normal procedures of contract, will not give him any ground, especially as it was made under cover of a Compliments Slip. In addition, the long time that has elapsed, that is from 8th September to 11th November, will further weaken Mr. Kumar’s stance as even in his letter, he has promised to act quickly.

Making his situation even pathetic, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Section 2 states that the agreement must be in writing (Lecture Note-the agreement must be in writing). The conversation Mr. Kumar had on telephone with Thorpe Trustees on 9th September will not have any legal value. Thus, in total, it is evident that Mr. Kumar will not be able to claim any legal right to be solely considered for