The issues raised in this question are indefensibility and exceptions. In the Torrens system a registered proprietor’s interest is “indefensible”. Section 42(1) of the Real Property Act provides that the registered proprietor’s title is paramount (indefeasible) except fraud. Therefore upon registration, Ron obtained a prima facie indefeasible title immediately. As an unregistered interest, Stan’s intention to re-purchasing of the property would be defeated unless he can invoke exceptions to indefeasibility, such as fraud or personal equity exceptions. 1. Fraud as an exception to indefeasibility As it is clearly stated in the s 42(1), fraud is an exception to indefeasibility. Although the Act did not provide the definition of a fraud, but …show more content…
RIGHTS IN PERSONAM (PERSONAL EQUITIES) Apart from the fraud exception stipulated in the Act as discussed in the above section, there are exceptions to indefeasibility based on personal equities or rights in personam. The personal equity may arise because of the conduct of the registered proprietor before or after the registration. In Bahr v Nicolay (No 2), Wilson and Toohey JJ stated that indefeasibility does not protect a registered proprietor from the consequences of his own conducts where those conducts give rise to a personal equity in another. Furthermore, as Brennan J pointed out: the purchaser who not only has notice of an antecedent unregistered interest but also purchases on terms that he will be bound by the unregistered interest is subject to that interest. Akin to Bahr v Nicolay, by notice of the Stan’s interest in the property and gave the promise to honour the agreement, Stan’s interest constituted an equitable interest in the land. Ron became subject to a constructive trust in favour of Stan. If Ron repudiates the unregistered interest after registration, he is, in equity’s eye, acting fraudulently and he may be compelled to honour the unregistered …show more content…
Although re-purchase agreement was written in the agreement between Stan and Tom, Ron’s undertaken is oral only to Tom. It could be difficult for the court to prove that Ron’s undertaken was firm and certain. Ron could argue that he was only taking notice of the interest, but merely promise to honour
Gummow and Bell JJ concluded that clause 1 of the Deed signed Rural’s debts and its interests under the loan agreements to Equuscorp. Their Honours observed that the phrase “other remedies for these matters” located in clause 2 assigned a claim in restitution for money had and received . Heydon J agreed with this decision on similar grounds .
(i) only the periods the property was held by the person relinquishing the property (or any related person) shall be taken into account under subparagraph (B)(i), and
The importance of social context in Land Law and the reforms which have occurred as a result cannot be ignored or their significance understated. In particular is the impact of the shift in the twentieth century to ‘emergence of a property owning, particularly a real-property-mortgaged-to-a-building-society-owning-democracy’. Such growth could hardly have been anticipated when the LPA 1925 was drafted and subsequently became statute. As a consequence of this growth the doctrine of the resulting trust and to a greater extent, the constructive trust became a robust mechanism by which non legal owners could establish beneficial interests in the home. Swadling comments on the ‘complete change in attitude’ between the emphasis on security of ownership of the home in Boland and the free marketability of land which we see in Flegg. He states ‘one wonders what has happened to the demands of social justice which justified their Lordships decision in 1980 (in Boland) over such a brief passage of time’. Did the House of Lords fail to resolve the very practical issue with which they were presented that had evolved over the passage of social change since the drafting of the 1925 legislation?
...useless car to a junk yard to recover some loss, but the difference of the re-sale of the junk-car would be a significant loss. Though there were no adequate assurances to the contract, anticipatory repudiation is the only probable remedy for Jack. However, the outcome would weigh on the predominant factor test, which is met because Tom is covered as a merchant because he is operating in his usual daily business, and Jack is the buyer. The sole purpose of the contract was for Tom to sell Jack a car, and for Jack to buy a car from Tom. The UCC, though less stringent than the statute of frauds, does effectively regulate commercial transfers allowing the free market to operate without diminishing the integrity of trade.
58. Plaintiff alleges that under an alter ego theory, there is no requirement of a showing of fraud, even though in the instant matter, all elements of fraud are present.
This is similar to the case of Kelner v Baxter (1866), where a team of directors had entered into a contract for a new hotel business, where the hotel business had not been registered, in order to purchase wine. Later when the company got registered, the contract got ratified. Unfortunately, the wine had been consumed before paying the bills, and later the company went into liquidation. The members had been sued. This is because the directors acted without any principal, as the company was not registered at that time of the
Moreover the class of the original covenantees can be extended to people who were not in the original deed under s.56(1) Law Of Property Act 19252. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 enables the benefit of a contract to be given to those who are not parties to it.3
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. This contract was created using the RESC form, which was likely provided by their real estate agent as it is the required form for real estate transactions according to Utah state law. The seller originally listed the house on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS); Jon and Marsha agreed that the asking price was too high for the neighborhood (although we are not given the actual listing price), and agreed to offer two-hundred and seven-thousand dollars ($207,000) and an Earnest Money Deposit of five-thousand dollars ($5,000). Additionally, the buyers requested that the seller pay 3% which includes the title insurance and property taxes. After the REPC form was drafted, the two addendums were created. Addendum No. 1 is from the seller back to the buyer, and Addendum No. 2 is the buyer’s counteroffer to the seller.
The need for the law to recognise possessory and equitable interests in land under a system of registration of title is a contested issue in Australia. The term ‘title’ means the extent of ownership over property as recognised by the legal system. For the purpose of this essay, a system of registration of title means the Torrens title system. The protection of possessory and equitable interests in Western Australia will be discussed, with reference to the Torrens title system and real property. It will be argued that there is still a need for the law to recognise equitable interests in land, however, the Torrens framework does remove the need for the law for the law to recognise possessory interests, in particular the doctrine of adverse possession.
It has been generally acknowledged that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel has much in common with common intention constructive trusts, i.e. those that concern the acquisition of an equitable interest in another person’s land. In effect, the general aim is the recognition of real property rights informally created. The similarity between the two doctrines become clear in a variety of cases where the court rely on either of the two doctrines. To show the distinction between the doctrines, this essay will analyse the principles, roots and rationale of both doctrines. With reference to the relevant case law it will be possible to highlight the subtle differences between the doctrines in the cases where there seems to be some overlap. Three key cases where this issue surfaced were the following: Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset (1991), Yaxley v. Gotts (1999) and Stack v. Dowden (2007). This essay will describe the relevant judgements in these cases in order to show the differences between the two doctrines.
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
Fraud is defined as someone try to act with intention to cheat other people in order to acquire an unfair or illegal advantage. The fraud happens due to management override the internal control of the organisation and fraud will affect the financial reporting. The main categories of fraud that can affect financial reporting are fraudulent financial reporting and misappropriation of assets.
One of the special concepts in land law is of overriding interests. The standard practice in the English land law is all the interest and rights affecting or is binding over particular a land should be registered in the Register. However, the concept of overriding interest denotes that there are interests which are binding on the owner (the registered proprietor) regardless of not being formally registered. It was introduced because in that era it was though that it would be unreasonable and unjust to overlook such rights and interest enjoyed. Overriding interests need not be registration to bind the legal owner of the land. Therefore, if the land is sold to another person the interests and rights would not be lost. It can be said that overriding by nature are unregistered if they are registered they will cease to be an overriding interest.
In law there are two types of land, registered and unregistered. It is necessary to register land so the register precisely reflects the state of the registered property, so it is clear to see who the current owner is and whether there are any third party proprietary interests affecting it; this is important as it would make many lal enquiries easier and will show the property’s reality to any future purchasers. The purpose of land registration according to Gray and Gray (2008) is that “any prospective purchaser of registered land should always be able to verify, by simple examination of the register, the exact nature of all the interests existing in or over the land which he proposes to buy”. There are three main principles of land registration: the insurance principle, curtain principle and the mirror principle. The mirror principle which essentially means that the register reflects reality hence all facts significant to the land title are to be found on the register. The significant facts that should be included in the register are “the owner, the nature of his ownership, and any limitations on his ownership and any rights enjoyed by other persons over the land that are adverse to the owner”. However this is not always the case as some third party proprietary interests override registered dispositions, these are called overriding interests. Overriding interests are binding on a purchaser of any registered land even though they are not on the register.
Birmingham Corporation, a local government authority, was looking for a compulsory acquisition of land which operated by a subsidiary company, Birmingham Waste Co Ltd. The owner of the land is Smith, Stone & Knight. Birmingham Waste Co Ltd was a wholly owned subsidiary of Smith, Stone & Knight.2 However, Birmingham Corporation refused to apportion compensation for disturbance of business to Birmingham Waste Co Ltd. Birmingham Corporation claimed that the subsidiary company did not own the land and not entitled to the compensation claim. The court, Atkinson J (Judge) held that the subsidiary company acted as an agent of the holding company and Birmingham Corporation must pay for the compensation. Nevertheless, Atkinson J had formulated six criteria that must be fulfilled to verify the agency relationship. By giving an example of the situation, King Sdn.Bhd is a subsidiary company of Queen Sdn.Bhd. King occupies premises which owns by Queen. King is carrying on the business on behalf of Queen. The government decides to purchase the premise as a compulsory for another purpose of use. Therefore, Queen claims for the compensation due to the disturbance of the acquisition for the premises which is occupied by King now. However, the government authority refuses to make a claim to King as King is holding less than one year of the land tenancy, King is not entitled to the compensation according to the relevant legislation. In fact, King is acted as an agent and conducting the business on behalf of Queen. Therefore, Queen can sue the authority for the compensation claim due to disturbance of business. Queen is entitled to the compensation as the subsidiary (King) is merely an agent of its parent