Land Law and Professional Advice - Essay Example

However, it can be seen that there is some contribution from her in the land as she helped to “prop up the business and the farm”. In Jones v Kernott2, the male spouse left the house and stopped paying the bills and the mortgage. In his absence, his wife bore all the expenses. It was held that the wife had an equitable interest in the house and on the basis of equity; the share was 90:19 between the two. But in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset3, upon sale by the husband who was the sole owner, the wife’s claim to a beneficial ownership was rejected despite her having made contributions in the improvement of the land.

Therefore, Andrea’s contribution in the improvements to the land would be regarded as de minimis. From Fred’s letter to his wife, it can be construed that he did not want to authorize Andrea to make negotiations regarding the sale of the farm. Since Fred never really put Andrea’s name in the deeds and now the Land law emphasises on the need of putting such agreements into writing, Andrea could not have passed the title to Rachel Buchanan. From another point of view, since Andrea borrowed a “vast” sum of money from her father, it can be construed that she had made a big investment in the farm and her contribution might not be regarded as de minimis.

From the judgement of Stack v Dowden4, it might be construed that Andrea had developed a constructive trust in the farm. This would enable her to transfer her equitable interest to Rachel Buchanan in the farm as seen in Chinn v Collins5. Therefore, Rachel now holds an equitable interest in the farm transferred to her from Andrea. Fred still has his interest and rights regarding the farm. Rachel mentions in her letter that there was an extremely valuable Georgian sun-dial in the garden. Andrea has taken the sun-dial and left the plinth.

Rachel wants the sun-dial back. The contract was between Rachel and Andrea. At that time, Rachel had not seen the estate. Hence, she did not know that there was a sun-dial on the estate and it was not essential to her prospective business either. In Berkley v Poulett6, the seller had removed some pictures and a sun-dial. The buyer sought recovery of those items. It was held that the sun-dial was not a fixture and was affixed for mere enjoyment. The seller was entitled to remove it at any time as he pleased.

Similarly, Andrea is entitled to have the sun-dial in her possession as it did not form a part of the contract and Rachel had no knowledge of its existence at the time of the contract. Rachel can have the plinth and it might be regarded as a fixture since it might do some damage to the land upon its removal. From Matthew Williams’ letter to Fred, it can be easily construed that Fred had completed the contract of transfer of the extension to the Hopgood farms to Matthew. The legal requirements are fulfilled and everything has been put into writing.

Mathew is now entitled to obtain possession of the land and Fred is holding the land for him. However, a letter from Beryl Stanforth, the owner of Grange Farm, to Fred suggests that she has an equitable interest in the land and her permission is required to lease the land. Mathew has written in his letter that when he went to the estate, he had an encounter with Beryl. This means that he could have made