Land Law and Property Agreements - Essay Example

In this particular case, it can be d that Piers’ action is legal considering that the law which deals with the element of sale of goods is concerned with transfer of ownership to the buyer once the agreement of sale has been finalised between the parties involved. When Rupert sold the house to Piers, he misrepresented some facts to him but this did not affect the sale of agreement. However, there are third parties directly affected by the sale of the Sun House. For instance Jude is not aware of the sale and Piers has made some changes that affect Heather the tenant who has been ordered to leave immediately and Charlotte has also been ordered to stop using the front drive to reach the main road. It can be seen that Piers’ behaviour is lawful given that he lawfully entered into a contract with Rupert where an agreement of sale of the house was reached between the two. A contract can be loosely described as a legally binding agreement between two parties (Gibson, 1988). Certain elements need to exist in the formation of a contract. In order for a contract to be legally binding, there should be an agreement between the two parties involved. According to Harvey v Facey [1893] AC552, every contract should consist of an offer made by one party and accepted by the other. If it involves buying and selling, the seller agrees to sell something and the buyer agrees to pay for the goods or products being sold. Thus, sale of goods or property is regarded as a legally binding contract. After buying the Sun House, Piers became the legal owner of the place and is entitled to full control of it hence his behaviour is legal when he makes the changes described above. This agreement of sale is silent about the existence of a tenant, Heather who has a legal two year contract of renting the place. However, this agreement was made between her and Rupert, the previous owner. In actual fact, it is Rupert who was supposed to redefine Heather’s contract since he was selling the property to another new owner. Rupert could also have raised the issue with the new owner of the place if he was willing to accommodate this sitting tenant at the premises. However, this is not the case so Piers has the right to enjoy freedom at his newly acquired property. Indeed, this action can affect Heather who is unaware of what is happening but it is advisable to Piers that his behaviour is legal. On the agreement of sale of the house it is not stated that there is a tenant living there so there is no way Piers can be sued for something which he is not part of. By virtue of ordering Charlotte not to use his front drive, it is also advisable that his behaviour is within the legal confines of the law. The law of the land states that every person has a right to ownership to property and owners are protected by the laws of trespass to land. This can be supported by the case of Winder v. DPP [1996] 160 J.P.R 713, where the defendants were charged and convicted of aggravated trespass for intentionally disturbing a fox hunt on private property. As the new owner of the Sun House, Piers has a right to enjoy freedom without interference by trespassers hence his behaviour can be said to be lawful. Charlotte has to abide by the rules of the new owner of the place and she has to find another alternative route. In case of Jude who contributed 33% when the Sun House was initially purchased, it can be noted that Piers also has the right to tell him to leave. In the agreement of sale of the house, it was clearly spelled that Rupert was the sole owner of the place. In fact, it is Rupert who misrepresented the facts so this may not be a problem of the new owner of the house who bought it in faith on the basis of information he obtained from the seller when they entered into this particular agreement. A critical analysis of this case shows that Piers’ behaviour is lawful though it has a negative impact on the other parties affected as discussed above. 2. When Kevin the property developer finished renovating the previously dilapidated houses he bought, he sold them to new owners. In each conveyance, it was covenanted that each purchaser will paint the front of the house white and the houses were not supposed to be used for business purpose. Kevin himself covenanted that he will retain the road but this is not the case after a short period. However, Orla has started giving dancing lessons at her place while Tess painted the house pink. Apparently, these new owners bought the property from original owners who were part of the agreement. Kevin has let the road fall into disrepair and it is only Cara who has not breached the original agreement. Therefore, Cara has some legal rights in as far as this case is concerned. This is supported by the case of R v Clarke 1927 40 [CLR 227] which states that when an offer is made and agreed, it becomes legally binding The fact that Kevin is still present makes it apparent for Cara to raise a legal case against him. An agreement was made between the parties involved but it can be noted that the property developer with more power over the properties sold is also the other person who has breached the agreement. Cara has a legal right to approach Kevin and remind him that he has breached an agreement they made when they moved into the new place. Cara has a legal right to remind Kevin to owner his obligation to maintain the road. Such an agreement is lawfully binding and it can be enforced by the court of law so it is advisable to Cara to take legal channels in pursuit of this case. If Cara takes appropriate measures in dealing with this issue, there are likely chances that she can win the case given that it is legally enforceable. The original agreement has not been changed hence there is a case to answer on behalf of the defaulters of this particular agreement. On the other hand, it can be noted that the two new owners have apparently changed the rules and it can be noted that the other one has painted the house pink while the other one has started offering dancing lessons. However, these people have breached the rules of the place but it can be seen that they have not directly breached the agreement since they were not part of the original agreement. The fact that these changes have been made in the presence of Kevin makes him answerable to charges of breach of contract. Being the responsible authority for the place, Kevin has the right to stamp his authority so that whoever comes to the place should comply with the expected rules and regulations. In this particular case, it can be seen that Cara has a legal right to confront Kevin so that he can exercise his responsibility to ensure that everyone living in this place is abiding by the rules and regulations agreed. Cara may not have the power to confront the third parties who are new owners of houses at this place but it is noble for her to face Kevin who has the overall authority over the place and the people staying there. Should there be any changes to the original rules, these changes shave to be communicated to all parties involved and it can be noted that this has not been the case. Therefore, Cara has a legal right to seek clarification with regards to the rules guiding the behaviour and conduct of people living at this place. It is the responsibility of the property developer to ensure that even new owners of the houses under his authority are aware of the rules that have to be abided by. Failure to do so leaves him answerable to charges of breach of contract since he has the authority to enforce such an agreement. 3. ‘Easements are rather like elephants: easy to recognise but difficult to define,’ (Mackenzie & Philips, ND). Basically, easement is a term that is used to describe a situation where one has a right to use the property of another person and this traditionally applied to adjoining pieces of land and not for the benefit of a particular individual. In such a case, both parties are supposed to have the same benefit which can include the right of way or the right of flowing water. Easements are usually conveyed through a contract or deed between parties involved and they are supposed to be in compliance with the Statute of Frauds. However, there are likely to be some complications with regards to access of the land under this aspect of easement. For instance, if the owner of the land enters into a contract with the other person on adjoining land, he or she may be denied the rights to enjoy his right to that land. It may be agreed that that the construction of buildings that may obstruct the full movement of light into the owner’s property is prohibited and this can be a source of conflict between the two parties involved. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights suggests that everyone has a right to own property and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his own property. In such a case described above, it can be noted that somehow, the owner of the land is deprived of his right to enjoy his land to the fullest extent. Though a contract may exist with regards to the use of the land by the other person, there are likely chances of conflict if the rightful owner of the piece of land is deprived the opportunity to enjoy its use. However, the law is meant to give justice to the parties involved in the easement. Just like any other issue related to real estate, a deed or a contract exist and it is binding during its tenure. Whilst everyone has a right to ownership of land and property, easements are specifically meant to iron out certain elements that may be centres of controversy. At times, an easement is meant to give access to a landlocked piece of land and this agreement is protected by the law. This agreement is necessary and it is protected by the law given that the conditions of use of another person’s land are stated in the agreement. Should there be violation of the initial agreement, it becomes the role of the court to solve such dispute. Basically, an easement is a legal agreement that gives the other person a right to use his land. This is an important element related to real estate and it is protected by the law. There are different types of easement and these are recognised under statutory laws concerned with issues related to real estates. One notable aspect about easements is that they do not just exist without an agreement. Usually, an agreement between the two parties involved takes precedence before an easement comes into existence and this agreement is binding. Thus, it can be noted that easements derive from the right to own property since they are primarily concerned with setting terms for use of other people’s properties particularly land. Ownership is not transferred through easements but the terms and conditions have to be respected in order for the agreement to be binding and for it to be legally enforceable. When there is no agreement, it may be difficult to enforce an easement and the use of another person’s land without implied right may be considered as trespassing. However, when an easement exists, the use of the other person’s land may not be regarded as trespassing. Read More