A Practical Approach to Commercial Conveyancing and Property - Assignment Example

Download file to see previous pages Under UK laws, specific performance is an equitable relief granted through a discretionary order of the court that may compel the defaulting party to execute and complete the contract for the purchase or sale of a land.1 For instance, in Patel v Ali, a vendor’s health was spoiled immediately after the conclusion of the contract that an order of the specific performance was not made available2. In Lazard Bros and Co Ltd v. Fairfield Properties Co (Mayfair) Lt3d, it was held by the court that simple delay without possession of the property is not itself an impediment to seek the relief of specific performance. In this case, a delay of two years was held to be a bar since the defendant had not been prejudiced by the delay4. Harley, Virginia’s brother can approach the court for granting relief under the “specific performance” provisions of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 of UK. In case , if Harley has not made the consideration for the purchase the property from Virginia within the time as stipulated in the agreement , then Virginia has every right to sell the property to another party by giving a notice of recession from the agreement to Harley. It is assumed that Virginia might have given such notice of the ground on which the agreement to sell has become not effective to Harley. Answer to B Jack claims that he has been grazing his animals in the paddock for the last 25 years. Courts will acknowledge evidence of a continuous use for at least twenty years as evidence that the grazing rights have been enjoyed or used. Hence, it is essential to corroborate that the prolonged use of right of grazing for a minimum period of 20 years is essential. Courts will acknowledge evidence of a continuous use for at least twenty years as evidence that the grazing rights has been enjoyed or used and in such cases, the courts will presume that there was a grant5. In Neaverson v Peterborough RDC which dealt with grazing rights and the land owner in this case did not have any right to award any grazing privileges for cattle on the land in question ,but granted so, and those enjoying such privileges claimed easement rights under the cannons of lost modern grant. In this case, the plaintiffs failed as the land owner was not having any right to award such grazing rights. In this case, Virginia is the registered freehold proprietor of Silver House, which consists of a house and a fenced paddock. As the Jack is using the property for grazing for the last two decades and since Virginia is the registered owner of the property, then it is presumed that Jack is grazing in Virginia’s property with the connivance and approval of Virginia. Hence, Papageno is under obligation to allow the Jack to graze his cattle in the Silver House property for the future period also. Answer to Question C Squatting is the scenario where a stranger occupies unauthorisedly any abandoned or empty property for which the squatter, may not have any right to own the same or as a tenant and without the valid authorisation from the owner of the house. The offense committed by the Toby by refusing to leave the Papageno’s property can be regarded as an offense under trespassing of a property. 6 Further, if Toby refuses to leave the Papageno’s property, then Papageno is eligible to become as a “displaced residential occupier.” This is a crime and Papageno is having every right to call the police and report the offense. Since Papageno is planning to move into the newly bought property and Papageno is presently residing in the said premises, then Papageno can be regarded as a “protected intending occupier under section 12 A of the Criminal Law Act of 1977.” It is an offence if a stranger or a trespasser enters into a residential property without the authority from the owner, and if he declines to leave the property even after the instruction from the displaced residential occupier. In such scenario, Papageno shall be regarded as a “protected intending occupier,” and he is required to issue a certificate as demanded by the section “124 of the Criminal Act 1977, or a notice or statement to Toby that exhibits that Papageno as the legal owner of the said property. Since Toby is refusing to leave the property, Papageno can approach the police and in such scenario, police may decide whether they have to arrest Toby, who is a squatter as mentioned above or not7. Further, it is said that Virginia had sold the estate with vacant possession and such a scenario, Toby can be regarded as fraudster as he claims that he is a tenant, and that he pays rent every month. As Toby has not, so far, been able to find any papers to prove this, but he refuses to leave. Hence, Toby can be held criminally for his fraudulent statement and refusal to leave the property. Thus, in the first instance, Papageno should check whether Harley has given ?900,000 to Virginia within the stipulated time as mentioned in the agreement to sell and if not, Papageno need not take precaution from his side. As to whether there is any interest disclosed by the account above that may take priority over Papageno interest in the land, in the second instance, Papageno is under obligation to allow the Jack to graze his cattle in the Silver House property for the future period also as Jack is grazing his cattle’s in the above property for more than 25 years continuously. In the third instance, Papageno should initiate criminal action against Toby for his fraudulent statement and refusal to leave the property legally owned by him.  ...Download file to see next pages Read More