1. In this particular case, it can be noted 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…
Download file to see previous pages...
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  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  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
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“Land Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/other/1399055-land-law
(Land Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words)
“Land Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/other/1399055-land-law.
This research will begin with the definition of law as a set of rules in a jurisdiction that governs people’s behavior. It defines rights and obligations of individuals and provides outlines for dealing with disobedience to its provisions. There are a number of classifications of law, one of which is the classification by subject.
The LRA distinguishes third party rights that are required to be registered and those that are considered overriding2and I shall consider any potential equitable rights when considering the legal position of Miss Kaur, Ms Winston and Miss Thomas. 2: Miss Kaur Mr Winston was the sole registered proprietor of the Property and with regard to Miss Kaur’s legal position it is evident that she gave Mr Winston ?
However, legally Thomas is on the wrong for illegally encroaching on the council’s land, which now belongs to Edward. However, he has legal grounds to reverse this decision according to the law. Encroaching is the act of something or someone illegally crossing and occupying another person’s land.
Today people increasingly depend on mortgage loans to purchase land/properties and to build homes. In order to secure their credit, mortgage lenders include strict repossession terms in the mortgage deed. It is observed that some complex legal provisions like restrictive covenants adversely affect land/property deals because such rules limit buyers’ rights on the property.
Land law can be further elaborated under the context of the statement, “of course it is necessary for conveyancing to be made as easy as possible, and for purchasers to be protected. However, this should not be at the expenses of beneficial interests”.
The register of the title is broadly intended to operate as a mirror, reflecting the potential disponee (and to any other interested person) the totality of the proprietary benefits and burdens which currently affect the land`. Illustrating with decided cases, consider the extent to which overriding interests detract from this fundamental principle.
he is not to impose any liability that is considered personal .William has applied for a loan and used the piece of land he owns as security the two hundred thousand pounds by the Loamshire building society. The loan is to be secured by a legal charge over the abbey farm the
shed from the proprietary rights in that proprietary rights provides the capacity to bind a purchaser of the land while personal right is only binding to the person who gave the right. Technically, all lands belong to Crown under the English jurisprudence of land laws. However,
12 Pages(3000 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Land Law for FREE!