Property Law in England and Wales - Assignment Example

of the Property Law Introduction The English land law deals with the real property issues in England and Wales. The law in question revolves around the acquisition and rights and obligations of land owners coupled with sharing and protection of wealth of the people of England and Wales (Harpum, et al 67). The property in accordance with classification can be movable or immovable. As per definition, personal things mean goods, money, and movables. The interest in personal either is absolute or qualified. The word property in detailed definition refers to an object / objects whose owner is in possession of a car, book or cell phone (Badenhorst, et al 13). The law of England and Wales permits a person to transfer his interest in property to others after fulfilment of certain conditions in accordance with law. It happens if a person dies intestate, bankrupt, or the property taken in execution of a court judgment for auction to generate the proceeds towards appropriation of liabilities (Clarke & Kohler 129). Donation ‘mortis causa’ in conventional terms is considered as a gift to someone in anticipation of the death of its maker. The transfer of property is conditional or in other words, rests with the recipient immediately subject to the condition that the will giver’s death occurs shortly (Harpum, et al 72). The Facts a) Tim and John decided to live in the jungles of Borneo. There they made mutual wills with regard to their estate to Bin. b) John was afraid of flying. Hence, gave his watch to Adaeze keeping in mind that the chances of lending is remote. c) The cited gentlemen landed in the jungles of Borneo. They passed the jungle to celebrate the birthday of John in shack. During the stay at night, they heard horrible noises outside their house, which scared John. They were in fear of being attacked that would cause their death. Therefore, John handed over a bunch of keys of his house to Tim, car and a Cheque to Tim. d) Simultaneously Tim gave John text book on property law with copyright, shares certificate that kept by his solicitor and last pay Cheque to John. e) John in his birthday had a heart attack that compelled Tim to call back his last pay Cheque given to John. f) Ben, the ultimate beneficiary, knew nothing about what was going on. Tim and the rest of the team members on their way to hospital in an ambulance for the treatment of John met with an accident wherein Tim was killed. g) With the care of Kasim and Tobi, John comes back to normal life. h) He then changed his mind and leaves his moveable and immoveable properties to the mentioned persons. Deficiencies a) The first deficiency, when transferring lease hold estate to Bin, John and Tim had not signed the deed. b) The second deficiency is that John only handed over the keys of his house, car and not transferred it in the name of John. The Cheque given to John was not in favour of John to draw the amount through his bank account. In order to have a valid possession of the mentioned moveable and immoveable properties, Tim should have signed the deed. c) The third deficiency, the copyright of text book on property law, was not assigned to John, and the share certificates were not transferred in the name of John that were kept with the solicitor of Tim. d) Last pay Cheque that was given to John, called back which was not endorsed by the employer. e) As far as the rights of moveable and immoveable properties of John are concerned, according to new will it will go to Kasim and Tobi. They will be the ultimate beneficiaries. Bin has nothing to with the estate of John. However, Ben will inherit the estate of Tim. Case Examples 1) Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425 2) Woodard v Woodard [1992] R.T.R 35 3) Hewitt v Kaye [1868] LR 6 Eq 198 4) Re Beaumont [1902] 1 Ch 889 at 892 5) Re Weston [1902] 1 Ch 680 6) Cain v Moon [1896] 2 QB 283 7) S.1 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 8) Bills of Exchange Act 1882 9) Stock Transfer Act 1963 10) S.136 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1925 The Case in Point 1. Donation Mortis Causa (DMC) was established in the case of Cain v Moon [1896]1 where Lord CJ set three pre-requisite for a valid DMC. The contemplation of death, gift must be delivered and the gift is capable of passing. 2. The property of Tim gave to John is guided by the Law of Property Act 1989. According to the statute, a property can only be transferred through signed deeds. However, in the later case of the Sen. v Headley [1991]2 Mummery Judge was of the view that it can be materialized via Donation Mortis Causa (DMC) provided all the essential requirements are fulfilled in letter and in spirit. The transfer of land in accordance with Law of Property Act is usually done by execution of the deed. In the case of Sen. v. Headley, it was held that land could be passed by essential indicia provided someone given access to the deed of property by the donor. 3. John does not deliver the car to Tim; he just delivers essential indicia to Tim. However, in the case of Woodard v Woodard [1992]3 it was held by the competent court of law that an effective delivery had taken place by delivering essential indicia. The court was of the view that a terminally ill father gave his car keys to his son, which was enough for the son to have the car. 4. John gave his watch to Adaeze. The action of John amounts to establish ownership of Adaeze on the watch of John. In this respect, we may also cite the above case as a case example. 5. The Cheque which Tim received from John is dealt in line with the Bills of exchange act 1882. It states that the cheques can only be transferred by direct delivery or endorsements. 6. Hewitt v Kaye [1868]4 states that if a Cheque does not clear before a donor’s lifetime, then the Cheque is worth nothing. However, the cheques that are not cleared in the donors lifetime still can be claimed through DMC. Buckley J in Re Beaumont [1991] gives an example of what might constitute a valid DMC with regards to cheques. According to Justice Buckley, if a Cheque was given by a donor or drawer and he fell ill critically, and the drawer went to a branch for payment. The manager replied that since the cash is closed and locked up, hence, come tomorrow for payment. In the meantime, the drawer died of heart failure in the night. Here, the rule of donation mortis causa can be invoked. It indicates that the donor or the drawer has to meet certain procedural requirements to lodge or to encash the Cheque well before the death of the donor or the drawer. 7. Tim must endorse last pay Cheque of John before he gives it to John. Therefore, John is enabled to clear it into the bank, as stated by the Bills of exchange act 1882, which Tim failed to do so. 8. Shares that kept with the solicitor of Tim are dealt with by the Stock Transfer Act 1963. The Act in question states that shares can only be transferred by registration. Since Tim does not register the shares to John; instead he gives him essential indicia. Therefore, the owner ship of John in terms of share certificates could not be established. 9. John gives Tim his keys of the house directly which expressed his intention to have his leasehold property to Tim. For ease of reference, we may refer here to the case example of Sen v Headley [1902]5 as precedent. Works Cited Badenhorst, P.J., Pienaar, Juanita, M. & Mostert, H. Silberberg and Schoemans The Law of Property. 5th Ed. Durban: LexisNexis/Butterworths, 2006. pp. 8-39. Cain v Moon [1896] 2 QB 283. Clarke, A. & Kohler, P. Property law: Commentary and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 127-138. Harpum, C. Bridge, S. & Dixon, M. Megarry and Wade: The Law of Real Property. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2008. pp. 58-72. Hewitt v Kaye (1868) LR 6 Eq 198 Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425 Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425. Woodward v Woodward [1992] RTR 35 CA Read More