The Law of Property Act 1925 - Essay Example

? Land Law Task: Land Law Part A From the first scenario where by Mr. Hay has no idea about Rose having contributed to thepurchase of the bramble farm, Mr. Hay has an obligation to Rose even if he received absolute title of the land. Additionally, even if Rose’s name was not in the ownership title document of the farm, she has documentary evidence showing that she contributed to the purchase of the farm.However, the contract is legally binding between Mr. Hay and Major Thorn. The reason for this is that Major Thorn had the legal right to sell the land and provided the necessary documentation to Mr. Hay hence making the deals legitimate. Rose has a claim on the farm even if she is not in the legal documents as part of the farm. According to the Law of property Act 1925, land ownership revolved around equity and Common law1. Additionally, land had a trustee when there was more than one owner. For instance, this case Major Thorn is the trustee and representing Rose2. 2) When Mr. Hay was buying the property, he bought it with all the rights hence making all other things that are in the farm belong to Mr. Hay. Major Thorn did not disclose to Mr. Hay about the previous lease agreement that he made with Mr. Wood in 2007 when he was selling the farm to Mr. Hay. This make Mr. Hay not bound to the agreement between Mr. Wood and Major Thorn. It is up to Major Thorn to sort out Mr. Wood because he did not disclose this information to Mr. Hay during the transaction. However, Mr. Wood can opt to buy the cottage because the lease agreement states that in case Major Thorn decides to sell the farm, Mr. Wood can buy the cottage. The other reason as to why Mr. Hay is not legally bound by Mr. Woods rights is because Major Thorn had the registration title to the farm hence making it his without this other agreements coming to light hence it is only prudent that Major Thorn deals with Mr. wood without involving Mr. Hay in the resolution3. 3) In the case of Mr. Plant, Mr. Hay has every right to stop him from passing through his farm even if they have been using the shortcut for a long time. The reason for this is that everything in that particular land including paths, waterways, gardens, trees, mines and passages belong to Mr. Hay. These items pass automatically to the new farm owner after sale of the property. For instance, the path that Mr. Plant has been using as a shortcut to a local pub belongs to Mr. Hay and he cannot use it if Mr. Hay does not allow it. It is needless to itemize these things in the contract because they pass automatically after sale hence the use of the field by Mr. Plant will not bind Mr. Hay. 4) In the case of the ornamental bronze statue, Mr. Hay had every right to be furious. This is because when he was signing the contract with Major Thorn the statue was on the farm and Major Thorn did not disclose to Mr. Hay that the statue was not part of the agreement only to come and remove it after signing of the contracts. However, the statue was a fixture hence part of the land because the way Major Thorn installed it, the intention was never to remove it from that land. He used heavy lifting equipment in order to put the statue in position in fact causing a scene in the village. These are some of the strong signs that represent a fixture hence Major Thorn was not supposed to remove it after sale of the firm. One of the most famous cases in this particular area is Australian Provincial Assurance v. Coroneo. The main concern of the court was theater equipment for instance projectors, chairs and generator that were in the theatre. The court ruled that if any item was in the theatre and did not stand on its own weight then that particular object was a chattel and the burden of proof lied on the does not agree. However, if the object had an attachment to the property using any form of support then it was a fixture. Similarly, the burden of proof remains on the person who does not agree. In the case of Major Thorn, the elephant statue was part of the firm because it had attachment to the farm and it is evident that he wanted to have it there permanently. The elephant statue could not stand on its own weight; Major Thorn had to support it hence making it a fixture and not a chattel. Major Thorn could not remove it upon sale of the farm. If he did not want to leave the statue to Mr. Hay, then either he would have disclosed this in the contract of sale and both would agree on this issue or he would have removed it before getting into contract with Mr. Hay. Additionally, the presence of the elephant statue may have contributed to Mr. Hay making a decision to purchase the farm knowing that he will have the statue too because Major Thorn did not disclose to Mr. Hay that the elephant statue was not part of the sale agreement only for Mr. Hay to realize this later. Mr. Hay has the legal right to retrieve the elephant statue from Major Thorn due to the reasons above that elaborate on the position of the statue and other case law that relate to it. Part B 1) Mr. Corn is not bound to the fact that there was an agreement between the first buyer of the property and the owner that it was for residential purposes only. Additionally, Mr. Corn did not receive the agreement that obligated him not to put up a business premise on the land during the purchase of the property. When Mr. Corn was entering into contract with Farmer field, Farmer field did not disclose that the land was for residential purposes only hence making Mr. Corn not liable. Farmer Field had the obligation of making Mr. Corn understand and sign a contractual agreement that spelled out that the land was for residential purpose only and no business premise was to be on the land. The letter from the neighbor does not amount to sufficient reason as to why Mr. Corm cannot continue or carry on with his plan of starting a cafe. 2) There was change of ownership of property from Farmer Field to Mr. Corn who has now the legal right to do whatever he pleases with the farm. It was only prudent that Mr. Farmer Field inform both Mr. Leek and Mr. Root about the change of ownership. Additionally he had an obligation to inform Mr. Corn about the two tenants on the property prior to the close of the sale. When Mr. Leek was entering into agreement with Mr. Farmer Field there was no foreseeable possibility that Mr. Farmer field will sellthe farm. However,in the eventuality of sale of the firm then Mr. Leek has to seek alternatives because Mr. Corn couldgive him an eviction notice to vacate the premises or they could get into a new arrangement.In the case of Mr. Root, the lease agreement protects him from eviction. He will continue with the lease until it expires because there is no clause in the lease that indicates change of terms in the event of property ownership change. 3) Mr. Corn has to honor the agreement between Heather and Mr. Farmer Field. However, there needed to be full foreclosure of all previous matters regarding the property. Additionally, in this case Mr. Corn cannot close the way to Heather’s property. The main reason for this is that Mr. Farmer Field has indirectly sold that part of the farm to Heather because Mr. Farmer Field owed Heather and giving her the right of way is a form of payment. The law of contract protects Heather from any action that Mr. Corn may want to bring against her because she has a legally binding agreement with Mr. Farmer Field. Additionally, there is very little Mr. Corn can do about it. 4) Mr. Corn has no legal obligation to Daisy because she does not have any documentary evidence to have contributed to the purchase of the farm. When she was contributing to the purchase of the land, it was a local arrangement between her and Mr. Farmer Field. According to the Limitations Act 1980, the only way for Daisy to have a legitimate claim on the firm she had to live on the farm for a minimum of twelve years but Daisy had only lived there for a period of nine years. In this case, Daisy should hold his grandson Mr. Farmer Field liable but not Mr. Corn. According to the law of property, Act 1925 Daisy could have a legitimate claim under the equitable clause but after the Land reforms then the law put more emphasis on documented evidence in claiming title of any land4. In conclusion, the Law of Property Act 1925 provided for an equitable way of land rights and distribution among citizens. However, after the reforms many changes took place including introduction of land title deeds to individuals to show ownership and rights to a piece of land. Additionally, the reforms mainly focused on the overhauling substantive law. Similarly, it was to make conveyance simpler and the establish a balance of how to deal with land purchasers and third parties simpler as compared to the much complex way that way previously in existence. The introduction of reforms on land ownership and registration streamlined the transfer of land from one person to another hence eliminating the ambiguity that existed. For instance, the clause on co-ownership of land enabled people to retain the right to land even if they jointly bought the land as the case of Rose and Major Thorn. However, before 1925 this was difficult because unregistered land ownership was not documented hence making it quite difficult to establish co-ownership5. References 3 - 1925 LEGISLATION, Estates, interest and co-ownership. University of Northampton – NLI website, (n.d), Retrieved January 10, 2012, http://nli.northampton.ac.uk/mmb/lawacc/jrm/Land-2-Estates-Interests-Co-ownership.htm Dixon, M, Principles of land law, Cavendish, London, 2002. Dixon, M, Modern land law, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, 2010. Goo, S, H, Sourcebook on land law, Cavendish, London, 2002. Legislation.gov.uk. Settled Land Act 1925, the national archives, (n.d), Retrieved January 10, 2012, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/18 Read More