Key Aspects of Property Law - Essay Example

Introduction: There are many aspects involved in the property law. It is very important to understand the rules surrounding it in order to preserve goodwill among participants and in the event that misunderstanding arises, it is of utmost importance that people involve can retrace back where it has failed. The following are the different aspect of learning property law: Equity Law Equitable jurisdiction Trusts and other branches thereof: express trust, resulting trust, and constructive trust that is also known as constructive trust Equity law is the branch of the English law which has been developed many years ago because people in lawsuits would complain to the king about the very callous rules of the common law which were in the way of truly achieving justice. Equity law is supplemental to the Common law and could not stand alone according to The Origins of Equity (Maitland, F. W. 19080); however many rules and doctrines are based upon equity law like the rich law of estates, trusts, and mortgages. Equity law stands upon the judicial assessment of what is fair and just contrary to that of the strict and harsh ruling of the common law. One good example of this is the unjust enrichment which the common law does not recognize but it’s the legal relief developed by the equity courts (Duhaime L 2010). Duhaime Lloyd in Mistake, Rectification & Misrepresentation explains that when something went wrong with the agreement or the contract due to the misapprehension of one party in the contract, the contract is liable to equity. The one party who is not the one who made the mistake can ask for the contract to be set aside. If both of the parties made mistake in the basic element of their agreement the contract can be considered null and void. “Non Est Factum” is the Latin term being used that means “not this deed”, this is a defense used when one party does not want to respect the contract because of the misapprehension or mistake made in the contract. The very basic element of a contract is the meeting of the minds of both parties. The example of this is when Bob signed a contract with the understanding that Alan is buying his copy of the original Picasso painting yet Alan thought to be buying the original Picasso painting; there is a fundamental mistake here that warrants the contract to be considered null and void. “When both parties are mistaken on a basic and fundamental element of the contract: the contract is void from the start if the mistake is of such significance that, in the words of English case law, it is a "false and fundamental assumption" of the contract (R. v. Ontario Flue-cured Tobacco Growers, 1965). Trusts What is Trust when pertaining to legal matters? Trust is the right to hold the property by a person (trustee) for the benefit of another (beneficiary). Settlor or Donor is the term used to describe the person giving up the property, and Donee is the word used to describe the recipient of the property given up. The success of the Trust basically depends on the Trustee because he is the key person inside this legal instrument. The trustee must make it sure that the trust given to him by the Donor must be properly executed because the key element of trust is trust. The trustee must properly manage the property entrusted to him not for his own benefit but for the benefit of another. This is fiduciary – he is to carry his duty in faithfulness and loyalty. However the subject matter of the trust, say for example “a piece of land” is enjoyed by both parties, the trustee and the beneficiary. The trustee is the one holding the title of the property while the beneficiary is one who enjoys the produce of the land. There three elements in trust that should make it legally enforceable. 1. The words or the intention of the donor must be clearly conveyed as trust. If the word trust is not found in the agreement, however the whole documents shows that trust is intended, then it is taken as such (Luscar Ltd. v. Pembina Resources Ltd. (1995) 165 Alberta Reports 104). 2. The subject matter of trust must be certain (property). Everything that exist as and understood as property can be a subject of trust. Even the one that has no monetary value. 3. There must be a certain beneficiary in order for a trust to be enforceable. In order for the three elements to be fully functional, the property must be received by a trustee. Express trust is the trust made or created by the donor using a document (e.g. will) to express his intention to give up his property for the benefit of another person. Hayton in 2003 wrote "Trusts ... created intentionally by the act of the settlor ... are called express trusts." Resulting trust happens when right to the property is under the name of a person, which because that person did not put any value to the property because that person is fiduciary, that person is under obligation to return the title or right to the original owner (Pecore v Pecore 2007 SCC 17) by Justice Rothstein in Canada’s Supreme Court 2007. Constructive trust happens when a specific circumstance occurs such as unjust enrichment and the court has to impose to the participants the constructive trust. It is imposed by equity when under specific circumstance the owner of the property cannot hold the subject matter for the benefit of another, this happens to satisfy the demands of justice and good conscience (Osborn 1954). Unjust enrichment even though fast becoming fashion to family law to give way and give remedy on how to split assets in two unmarried couple, it is very prominent in commercial cases. Justice Anderkson in the Queen’s Bench says “unjust enrichment is when a person has made a considerable amount to the property of another person but has not been compensated doing it. The three elements of unjust enrichment are the following: Enrichment Deprivation of another person The absence of juristic reason for enrichment Pettkus v. Becker In the Canadian Supreme Court in 1980 the 19 year-old common law relationship of Mr. Pettkus and Ms. Becker was ended acrimoniously. In the 19 years of relationship Mr. Pettkus has developed and managed a thriving beehive business, and when the relationship ended Ms. Becker filed a lawsuit against Mr. Pettkus claiming half of the beehive operation. The basis of the claim was that during the relationship, the salary of Ms. Becker was spent to meet various “family” expenses while the Mr. Pettkus was able to save his income resulting to the purchase of the bee-hiving farm. Ms. Becker’s ground was first there was an implied trust that developed in the farm operation that warrants her interest on half of the property. She argued that if this was not the case, then a constructive trust and unjust enrichment was developed. These are court imposed trusts that were designed to remedy injustices if three requirements are met: (1) Someone has benefitted (2) At the expense of another and (3) The enrichment is "unjust" or without legal justification. For the reason that three of these requirements are met, the court decided on the favor of Mr. Becker entitling her to the half of the beehive farming (canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1980/1980canlii22/1980canlii22.html Conclusion: The equity law as it has been mentioned above has evolved to be an important part of the English legal system when the litigants in the century past would go to the king in order to secure the justice they were denied through the common law. The common law although fundamental in legal system obviously lacks the wisdom or the ability to weigh the circumstances surrounding a particular issue like unjust enrichment that often results to the denying of justice to the one whom truly deserves of it. . REFERENCES: Duhaime L (2010) Accessed April 29, 2010 at http://www.duhaime.org/legaldictionary/M/Mistake.aspx Hayton, David, Underhill and Hayton - Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees (London: Butterworths LexisNexis, 2003), page 53. Maitland, F. W., the Origins of Equity (1908) Osborn, P. G., A Concise Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1954) Pecore v Pecore2007 SCC 17 Pettkus v Becker 1980 2 SCR 834, published at canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1980/1980canlii22/1980canlii22.html Read More