Land Law Contentious Situations - Case Study Example

Land Law 1 Land Law Table of Contents A large amount of rubbish………………………………………..3 An expensive set of sliding doors……………………………….6 A fire alarm system has been removed………………………...8 Sources…………………………………………………………….9 Land Law A large amount of rubbish has been left in one of the buildings and it is estimated it will cost at least £5000 to remove it. One of the requirements in purchasing property is that the purchaser inspects the property before the purchase. The complete map of the site under consideration for purchase is thoroughly examined to get an understanding of the status of the property. Once the purchase is made and the payment is done, the buyers have de facto agreed that they are satisfied with the property. With the passing of time, certain shortfalls may come to light. Dissatisfactions can arise because certain information was not disclosed by the previous owner deliberately or unintentionally. Hence, it is necessary to acquaint oneself with every detail about the property about to be purchased. It becomes time consuming and difficult to have the seller handle any lacunae that arises in the said property later on. In the present situation, a large amount of rubbish has been left in one of the buildings that form part of the land purchased and it will cost the company at least ₤5,000 to remove it. The best course of action is to have the sellers remove the rubbish. This will enable the company to begin operating with a clean slate. The rubbish must be coming in the way of cleaning up the premises. It has to go and the sooner it is gotten rid of the better. In case the seller obliges the buyers and gets rid of the rubbish, it is fine. In case the seller prevaricates or even declines to oblige the buyers, then the buyers have little option other than take legal action or clear the rubbish themselves. In the instructions, there is no mention of the conditions under with the land was purchased. In the absence of the conditions under which the property was purchased it is not possible to give a clear answer. Generally when a property is purchased the buyers make an appraisal of the things that are there in the property premises. When a company buys land and buildings, it is mandatory to have complete list of the buildings and the men and material within each of those buildings. It is not possible to make changes of modifications without this list. Even if the purchasers are intending to make changes in the buildings to cater to their field of operation, it is necessary to get such a list so the purchasers have a clear understanding of the contents in each building and where they need to make changes. In the present circumstances, there is no such information. It is hoped that the company has not made the complete payment. If there is any balance in the payment to be made, it is easier to get the sellers carry out cleaning operations and also make needed restorations. Then there is the issue of what actually constitutes the rubbish? Since the property is a factory premise and seeing that the accumulated rubbish is voluminous, it is assumed that it may be production wastes. It is important to know what the rubbish is. Is it just plain rubbish? Is it toxic? Is the rubbish likely to have costly cannibalized items in it? Is it bio-degradable? Does it consist of debris? Once the nature of the substance is established, the next step is to see to its removal. The property is a factory site, so it is presumed that the rubbish must be a combination of waste material of all types. There is the option of asking the seller to oversee its removal. Normally, the seller is bound to remove the waste if notice is issued within a certain time limit. Conversely, if the purchase has been made without any clause making it mandatory for the previous owner to remove all waste, the litigation will be difficult to sustain (Judith Bray Speaks On Reform of Manorial Rights). Also, the sellers might even wash their hands off the issue if the sale has been effected through the condition of “as is where is.” Nonetheless, there is the possibility of forcing the sellers to dispose off the waste through legal action. The whole issue depends on the way the case is presented before the judge. In the United Kingdom, the judges depend on the facts of the case and common sense to make their verdict. They also refer to past verdicts in similar cases in the past (Sarah Carter). Normally, when a property is purchased, the purchasers first of all clean up the place and has it done up according to their requirement. This exercise will also generate more waste. Since the property is a factory site and a company has purchased it, the purchase has been obviously made for manufacturing activities. In the course of the manufacturing activities, the company will naturally generate some waste that will have to be disposed off. Considering all the facts enumerated above, the best option is to float a tender and get scrap dealers who will periodically approach the company to take scrap materials. Undoubtedly, the present waste material is quite large and the sellers must be given due notice about its presence and its disposal. Nonetheless, in the event the purpose of disposal is served through scrap dealers it is well and good. The scrap dealers will not only oversee the removal of the waste but also pay the company for it. In case for some reason the scrap dealers are not in position to remove the rubbish, the sellers can be prevailed upon to remove it if the sale was not effected through “as is where is” condition. An expensive set of sliding doors to a warehouse have been replaced by a cheaper alternative hinged version. It is necessary to know how this has happened. It may or it may not be that the action here is deliberate and willful on the previous owner’s part to remove the expensive sliding doors and replace it with cheaper alternative. However, this issue throws light on the fact that the purchasers have taken the pains to check the premises and notice that the sliding doors were expensive. It is therefore also apparent that they had noticed the large amount of rubbish that has not been removed. If the purchasers have made the deal and paid up the full amount for the purchase, it is an unfortunate comment on their unwarranted eagerness to purchase the property in haste. Be that as it may, they certainly have a strong case on this issue. The original sliding doors must be restored immediately. The company can issue a legal notice to the sellers (Becoming a Landlord). While on the subject, this action may be the result of an employee who had cast his eyes on the sliding doors. The sellers may or may not be directly involved. However, the sellers must be held responsible for the replacement. Since the purchasers cannot approach anybody else, they must deal in this case directly with the sellers. Evidently, while buying the property the current owners paid the amount which also covered the sliding doors. In case the sellers are in the dark about this issue, they may ask for some time to carry out an investigation. The sellers may be given reasonable amount of time for the purpose. Nevertheless, the onus is on the sellers to make good the loss. There is also the possibility that the sliding doors were removed and sold out. The sellers might try to wriggle out of this case by asking for more and more time. That is why the buyers must insist on a quick, time bound restoration. In the event the sellers are unable to make the restoration, then they must be made to pay for new sliding doors. In the event the company decides to go for a legal suit, it will have to prove that the original sliding doors have been replaced. This will not be difficult to prove. The British legal system largely depends on the verdict of the sitting judge. The judge hears the pro and con of the case and decides on the basis of investigations and precedents, if any (Trading Standards advice to business). A fire alarm system has been removed It is important while making the sales deed, a list of all the material found in the premises have been included in the deed. For the purpose of clarity and propriety, we assume that such a list exists in the deed. This issue is similar to the earlier point where expensive sliding doors were replaced by cheaper hinged alternatives, although in this case the entire fire alarm system is found missing. Obviously the previous owner will accept responsibility for it. In case the alarm system was insured, the previous owner will not have any problem in doing the needful. In the event the seller is not willing to oblige and have the fire alarm installed or make payment for a new alarm system, then the purchasers have the option of taking legal action together with the case of replacement of the expensive sliding door (United Kingdom Law). Sources: Becoming a Landlord, https://www.efanniemae.com/lc/publications/pdf/landlord.pdf Judith Bray Speaks on Reform of Manorial Rights, 8 August 2007, http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2007/bray-manorial.html Sarah Carter, A Guide to the UK Legal System, www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/United_Kingdom.htm Trading Standards advice to business, http://www.coventry.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/community-and-living/consumer-advice-and-protection/trading-standards/home-authority-advice/ United Kingdom Law, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/uk.htm Waste Consult Response, http://www.forever-fuels.com/files/u3/waste_consult_response.pdf Read More