Property law and trust question - Essay Example

According to English, C. (2005, 211), “Personal property includes all property other than freehold estates and interests in land. Personal property was called chattels by the common law and often referred to as movable goods, which included such items as money, debts, clothing, household goods, food, and all other movables and the rights and profits related to them” (Halsbury, Laws of England, 1960) b) The Japanese-style summer house and pagoda Under the law, Sarah has the right to demand for the Japanese style summer house and pagoda because they are considered as immovable properties and they follow the land.

The deed of sale entered by Sarah and the couple, Matt and Jane, has for it object a parcel of land, which is considered a real property or otherwise known as an immovable property. English, C. (2005,211) defined “real property as land and whatever is attached to the land, fixtures, rights and profits annexed to or issuing out of the land”. Therefore, Sarah is allowed by law to the recover permanent fixtures attached to the land, after purchasing the cottage. Hence, if the structures on the land are by nature, fixed and cannot be moved from one place to another, they are considered part of the property which was newly purchased. . “The statutory requirements for a valid contract for the sale and purchase of land are the following: Capacity, Offer and Acceptance, Consideration and Legality” (Cummins, 1997, p. 44). b) Explain whether there is a valid contract between Sarah and Peter for the sale and purchase of the London flat   Yes, there was a valid contract between Sarah and Peter for the sale and purchase of the London flat.

All elements for a valid contract of sale are present, namely: Capacity, Offer and Acceptance, Consideration and Legality. In the case at bar, there was a meeting of the minds between Sarah and Peter the moment Peter agreed to sell his flat to Sarah for the consideration of ?180,000. The fact that Peter accepted the offer tendered by Sarah in the amount of ?180,000, there was already a perfected contract as she signed the letter that she is willing to buy the property. To consider an offer to be acknowledged, “a valid act of acceptance must be made by the offeree” (Gillies, 2004, p. 149). This was further clarified in the case of Carlill v.

Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., (1893) 1 QB 256. “The first requisite of a contract is that both parties have reached an agreement. There are three essential requisites to the creation of a contract, namely: agreement, contractual intention and consideration” (Oughton and Davis, 2000, p. 21). Here, all the essential requisites to make a contract perfected are present. Therefore, there was a valid contract entered by both parties, giving rise to the cause of action by Sarah against Peter for breach of contract and to compel him to fulfill his obligation to deliver the flat. 3.) Explain the nature of the rights if any, which peter has to keep his horse in the paddock Peter has