Land Law

Question I:

A)

Issue:

In this case study the issue is arises between the Oscar and Anne regarding transferring the property rights. As the deal of transfer of property is raised between the Oscar and Arthur Briar. As Anne is the Arthur wife and during purchasing the property she also invested £30,000 amount as the purchasing prices. In such manner she also carries the liability in respect of living freely in that property. Arthur and Anne are not divorced and during the time of possession, Anne is on the holidays. Thus, she is not familiar with any such matter and thus, the issue arises in respect of not leaving the property without any signing contract.

Rule:

Under the land registration Act, 2002, the rules relating to transfer of property is based on absolute and conditional. Absolute condition reflect that person not carry any liability of the opposite party not personally manage the activities or inspect the documents [2]. In respect of conditional right, both the parties are responsible as the breach or violation occurs from both the sides. In context of transfer of property it is mainly deal between the original owner and if their is any joint partner, than the signature of that person is also needed. In respect of case study of the Goodman V gallant (1986) Fam 106 Court of appeal, thus case reflect the joint ownership of the parties in respect of transferring any property to other person[3].

Application:

In respect of linking this case stud with the presents scenario the case is relevant to reflecting the joint ownership in property contract. But as linking up with the present case scenario, Anne cannot impose any restriction in respect of taking the ownership to Oscar[4]. As Anne cannot carry any interest over the property as she not share any title in property. Is such manner, Anne cannot impose any restriction regarding undertaking any interest or right in Fairway house. Thus, under the law registration act, 2002 the rights are valid if the contract is made between the parties which carry the original liability of the property.

Conclusion:

From the above the case study, Anne carry no interest in property as she not carry any freehold title. Thus, in such manner if she is enforced under the property than such agreement shall be void. Oscar cannot impose his right in that property and also such contract is not be valid. As their must be mutual agreement between the parties before entering into contract or signing any deed for further agreement. 

B)

Issue:

In this scenario, the issue reflect in respect of using the garage areas. As the main reason of using the Fairway house is that he can use the garage area for the keeping his Aston Martin DB4( Car). The issue arises that before taking the ownership of the property, Oscar not checked the whole property and just to save money he take his possession from itself. Thus, in such manner the issue arises as Jason made a lease agreement with the Arthur regarding using the garage for 5 years. As the agreement is signed by two witness thus, this is one of the major proof regarding which is carried by Jason in relation to carrying the possession in property.

Rules:

Under Section 1(1) (b) law of Property act, 1925 lease is given for particular time period. The terminology related to lease is protected under the Rent Act, 1977 which provides protection to tenant for particular time period as it is mentioned under the agreement[5]. In respect of the case study of the Facchinin V Bryson (1952) 1 TLR 1386 court of appeal, in this employer lease the property to assistant in respect of giving weekly payment in contraxt of availing the property. Thus in such manner, the contract is entered but on certain condition regarding continuing the job for longer time period[6].

Application:

By connecting this case study from the present senior, the agreement not clearly states that Jason is already using the garbage area and also he entered into the agreement regarding giving lease for such area for 5 years. As in context of verification, the deed is signed by witness. Thus, under the law of property act, 1925 which now converted into the law registration act, 2002 as it si stated that if the owner of the property give any property on lease to any person, than such contract of lease is valid for particular time period which is set under the agreement[7]. In respective of Jason, they carry the rights under the Fairway house till the set time period. If the Jason is enforced to follow the contract, the amount of lease is to be transferred to the Oscar instead of Arthur, as per the terms and condition mentioned under the property law Act.

Conclusion:

From the above study, the judgement is analysed in favour of Jason as he carry the right paper and also call clear norms are mentioned under the agreement. As it is conditional breach which is committed by both parties I.e. Oscar and Arthur. Arthur not provide the clear brief regarding the property used and also in return Oscar not check the status of the property. Thus, it is the duty of the Oscar to give Jason the liability to use the garbage till the lease agreement is expired.

C)

Issue:

In this the issue is analysed regarding getting the barbeque pit. As before purchasing the property, Oscar discussed with the Arthur after viewing the barbecue pit that this is useful for him and also he can host many dinner or family parties at that place. But after shifting to that place the barbecues is not present at that place and thus the issue raise in respect of returning back the Barbeque pit.

Rules:

Under the Transfer of property act, various terms and condition are mentioned under the agreement regarding taking ownership on any property. Thus, in such manner if it is mentioned under the agreement regarding fulfilling the following conditions, than it is the responsibility of the owner to fulfilled it for carrying the longer term relations [8]. Thus, in respect of imposing the right under the Factual Possession, they carry the special right in respect of taking possession in particular aspects. In case of Powell V McFarlane (1977) 38 P & CR 452 the case is relating to carrying the physical control on land. As Powell, 14 carry the activities on his grand father land regarding grazing a cow or goat over there. He also deal in using the land for shooting or undertaking any repairing or fence work[9].

Application:

Thus, in respect to the above case study, Powell not carry any right or not have any physical control over the property similarly to the present case scenario. As in the case study of the Oscar V Arthur, Oscar present the thoughts regarding using the barbecue pit but not entered any of the terms in the agreement[10]. Thus, in such manner Oscar carry no right to argue with the Arthur regarding getting back the barbecue pit. As this condition is not mentioned under the agreement as no right or liability is imposed in respect of fulfilling it.

Conclusion:

From the above discussion, the importance of the terms and condition are examined as if the condition is mentioned in agreement regarding providing the barbecue pit than it is the responsibility of the Arthur to fulfil it. But still if the Oscar demand from the Arthur regarding providing the barbecue as this is one of the major reason of preferring the house. Thus, by demanding this items results in maintaining the relationship between both of them and also by facing so much legal issue, it can also be resolved in better way.

Question 2

Issue:

In this case study, the issue arises in respect of purchasing the property under the co-ownership title. As the issue is raised regarding selling the property, the decision regarding purchasing the property is initiated by Amy, Ben, Carl, Dave and Eric as they are the students of the BCU. At the time of purchase, Eric is 17 and the remaining other are above 18. The issue arises in respect of having different views regarding using the property as Ben and Carl feel that property is to be sold while Dave and Eric decided to stay in that property for carrying the further master degree. Thus, in such way, the decision is initiated that carl serve his share and also sent letter to remaining owner. Before getting the letters, Dave dead and also due to non payment of money, bank orders for bankruptcy in respect of non payment of money. 

Rules:

As under the land registration act, 2002 in respect of getting registration of property under the co ownership, it mainly focus on two forms as firstly it is related to joint tenancy and second it is stated as tenancy in common. In respect of Joint tenancy as all the partner came on equal share and also enjoy the rights equally[11]. In respect of death of any partner results in shifting his share to the remaining partner. As this rules is mentioned under the Section 184 under the law of Property act, 1925. In context of matter related to tenancy in common, in this before entering into any agreement, all the partner decided their share in property. Thus, it is simpler way to distinguish the share in property in case of death of any one partner. In respect of relevant case study of the Pankhania V Chandegra (2012) EWCA Civ 1438 court of appeal, the order is given by court regarding distributing the property equally as their is no specific distribution is indicated before entering into any agreement[12].

Application:

Is respect of imposing this case to our present case study, the decision are equal and presentable and also it reflects the judgement which is made by court in respect of settling the disputes between the parties. In respective of this judgement the advice is given to the parties in respect of changing the legal and equitable ownership between the parties[13]. The right of the parties are unique and different and they enter into the joint tenancy regarding purchasing the ownership of the property. Thus, in respect of changing the equitable rights, they had to take the prior permission from court as no clause is mentioned in agreement regarding death of any partners. The share of Dave which is dead due to undiagnosed heart deflect had not mentioned anything in the agreement result in having equal share of his property among the remaining partners.

As the property cannot be sold easily and also the rights and interest of the parties are involved in this procedure. Thus, in such manner if the property is sold and undertaken by any person with offering the high market prices. Than in such way they get more success, as the comparison can be done in respect of comparing the actual market price with the price which they actual spent to purchase the property[14]. As B taken loan from banks regarding purchasing the property and also they in return provide security in respect of keeping the papers of the house. By that perspective, banks is the owner of the share of the ben and thus can discharges the expenses in respect of selling that part of share. Through this aspects the implication in respect of committing the bankrupts is that he had to sold the part of the share to bank in respect of not paying the payments on time.

Conclusion:

Thus from the above study, the conclusion is done by reflecting the co ownership in single property with having no common tenancy. As usually in case of purchasing the property with having more then two partner, than it is necessary to decide the part of the share. So at the time of death of any partner, it is easy to divide the share as per mentioned and also their liability is fairly managed. But in this case study, as nothing is mentioned under the agreement regarding division, thus it is stated to be joint tenancy. Thus, the share to be divided equitably so that the rights of the parties are easily managed and secured under the Property law.

Question 3

Issue:

In this aspects, the issue arises in respect of using such areas which is strictly prohibited by the owner of the building and also it is mentioned under the agreement than Hector can only use the limited area for their promotion or keeping the food storage. Thus, the issue arises as Hector business results in larger level of success and also their working criteria is covered by the television. As Simon is angry that hector not invited simon while the promoting the business in BBC food programme. By this activity, simon locked the outside building which he made available to Hectors in respect of storing food and in return to such procedure Hector had torn down the Smiths of Solihull board which they put in attached to that building. Thus, in such manner advices is to be given to Smith regarding the easement of the contract.

Rules:

Under the Land registration act, 2002, the court grand permission to the owner of the property regarding easing the property for some specific purpose. As in this the rights are carried in the hands of the owner regarding giving the liability to with person and the easement right is cancel in respect of not carrying any usage for carrying it in further perspective[15]. In respect of creation of easement it mainly carries two ways either express or implied as in respect of express they are mainly based on written statement which in mentioned in agreement regarding the terms and condition. In context of implied easement they are more complex procedure and also they not mainly based on written statement. In respect of case study Regency Villas V Diamond Resorts, the issue arises in respect of dispute in context of transferring the land[16].

Application:

In respect to the case scenario of the Regency Villas V Diamond Resorts, the issue arises in respect of giving liability to the person in respect of using the services of the land which is covered under the easement. Similar to our present case scenario their are various issue which is identified under this case study as firstly in respect of using the easement of another property for some specific purpose, Simon carry the right to use the property or wall of IB Green lane in respect of promoting the business of other persons.

Hector also carry the rights in respect of using the outbuilding of the 1A green lane as their is shortages of space in respect of keeping the food storages at particular place. As it is express easement which is intentioned under which the owners give liability to use the outbuilding for storage purpose[17]. No, Hector not carry any such right in respect of accessing the property until special permission is undertaken from Simon. Yes, hector can use the garden area to admire the view as hectors is using this place with special permission from simon. The easement is to be enforceable to Samir as they are under the contract and also in respect of sale in property, the ownerships and right are also given. But to follow the easement rules depends upon the owners whether they carries it for further purpose or not.

Conclusion:

From the above study, the case revolves around the easement procedure, where liability is granted by the owner to their tenants for the use of the property. There are various rights and responsibilities carried by the owners concerning the cancellation of an easement. Easements are provided based on the tenant's right to use a specific area with the owner's permission. Therefore, the entire process is conducted with Simon's permission, as outlined in the agreement, reflecting the principles of express easement law. For further assistance in understanding legal concepts like these, students can seek assignment help US. Additionally, using a grammar checker can help ensure clarity and accuracy in legal writing.

Also Read- Role and Characteristic of Leader and Manager

UPTO56%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit