LAND LAW QUESTIONS
by Student’s Name
The main issue of the case includes the legal considerations for Adele’s legal obligations to her brother Chris, the bank Deepak, and Beverly if she sells the property. Adele owns a property that she purchased at a considerably lower price than what the market is offering. If she sells the property, she should consider her obligations to her immediate family and dependents. The registered house in Bournemouth serves the purpose of many dependents that include her brother Chris, the neighbor Deepak, her mother Beverly, and the Contander Bank. The issue, in this case, arises due to the relationship that Adele has with each of these individuals. For instance, she has an outstanding loan mortgage with the bank that is supposed to be paid, a loan to her mother off 45000 euros, and the pledge she made to her brother Chris and the neighbor.
Adele has a well-developed relationship with each of these individuals, with the bank being a formal relationship that would need to be honored. The issue arises in determining a contract between Adele and his close friends, family, and the bank. The sole proprietor needs to know whether there is a legal obligation between herself and the brother due to the roughly written note while the two were having wine. Adele needs to know the obligation she owes her neighbor concerning the promise to use the shed and the money owed to the bank and her mother, Beverly. Determining the legal obligation between Claire and the involved parties is an essential factor to consider and resolve in determining liability in her sale of the freehold house.
The issue described above relates to laws and policies in the United Kingdom as described below. Solving the case would rely on the definition of the links the case attracts related to lad laws in the UK and aid the client reach a decision. This case relates to the law of contract, which is the determining element in the legality of any written or unwritten contract. The law of contract claims that for any agreement to have any legal grounds, it must have the components of a contract and should be reached by two entities with a sound mind. The property mortgage concept partakes and relates to the law of contract and real property law in the modern world of ownership and capital finance.1 Adele’s acquisition of the property involves taking a mortgage from the bank and paying in installments. Therefore, the plaintiff should consider understanding the land and property law to determine how to handle the sale of the property.
The property sale that Adele is considering after receiving the multiple offers on her land also relates to other laws in the United Kingdom. For instance, the issue relates to the contract law depending on her promises to Chris, her mother, and her neighbor Deepak. For contact to hold and be legally binding, it should have an offer and acceptance between two different entities or individuals. 2 Therefore, as the issue illustrates, Adele has entered into a contract with these individuals that should be determined by clearly analyzing the contract law. The contract law lays down the foundation for a contract to have legal binding between two parties and what factors or conditions could lead to the breach of the same contract. The analysis of the case issue and provision of legal advice to the plaintiff depends on the legal provisions related to her promise to her family and friends.
Applying the law of contract and property law is mandatory in reaching a viable decision regarding Adele’s sale of the freehold house. The first factor to consider in the solution of the issue would be the determination of the legal obligations that Adele has on the bank mortgage in case she sells the property. This issue mainly relates to the property law that determines the legality of any mortgage agreement between an individual and a bank. As the United Bank of Kuwait plc v Sahib case suggests, for a mortgage to be legally binding, there has to be a disposition of security in the form of maybe a title deed or a contractual agreement to pay the owed money in installments.3 The agreement between the bank and Adele on the mortgage has a legally binding contract that must be satisfied by both parties. In this matter, it is essential to consider the legal obligations of a mortgage and its termination.
Secondly, the contribution that Adele received from her mother on the acquisition of the house has to be considered in the determination of rights owed. Beverly contributed to the purchase of the freehold house, and in return, she got the obligation to use the annexe whenever she visited the UK. The arrangement between Adele and her mother relates to the loans and mortgage acts where a parent offers some money to her child to raise her mortgage score and get a better deal. Adele’s contribution from Beverly is more of a family contribution than a loan intended to raise Adele’s credit limit in gaining a mortgage deal. Adele is the sole proprietor owning the building and should be legally obligated to act in the interest of the business are required by the business ownership clauses relating to sole proprietorship. The contribution that Beverly offered to Adele for her purchase of the freehold house should be determined through the analysis of the legal ownership of the property.
Additionally, Adele’s agreement with her brother Chris brings a dilemma depending on her promise. As the issue describes, Chris and Adele had drinks in one night and made a promise jokingly in the form of writing at the back of a supermarket receipt. Therefore, depending on the intensity of the matter, Adele needs to know her rights and obligations related to the promise she made to her brother. The issue is related to the law contract as it includes an agreement between two individuals. However, the legality of a contract relates to law provisions and must satisfy various aspects of the deal. The formation of a contract includes forming an agreement that raises obligations that are enforced and recognized by the law.4 Therefore, the agreement between Adele and her brother Chris can be better explained under the law of contract and weighed against the elements of a contract.
Finally, Adele had an agreement with her neighbor that he should use the shed at the rear of the property since he had no garage. The agreement between the two can also be categorized under the law of contract based on a promise. Deepak can use the garage as long as it is in the ownership of Adele until he acquires a new garage according to the agreement the two reached. However, similar to the law of contract the agreement can only be determined as legally binding based on how it satisfies the components of the contract law. For instance, a promise cannot be legally binding as a contract unless a consideration supports it in the common law.5 Therefore, Adele’s agreement with her neighbor has no tangible, enforceable by law, and holds no obligation. Therefore, Adele has no direct responsibility to Deepak in case she decides to sell the property.
If the case ends up in court after Amanda sells the property to the interested parties for the quoted market value, the court may decide on the case depending on what the law recommends. For the case of Adele against Beverly, the court might rule that Adele pays the money contributed towards the purchase of the property as there exists a contract in the form of a promise and a significant consideration.6 Therefore it would be important that Adele consults with her mother for settlement or discuss an alternative contract with a potential buyer. However, Chris cannot sue Adele for breaking her promise as there exists no form of consideration, and if the court decides to hear the case, Adele can argue she was not in her correct State of mind.7 Adele has no legal obligation to Deepak if she sells the property as there is no significant consideration. A buyer is not bound to the rights that Deepak might claim unless he enters into a contract with the new buyer.
The issue of the case arises from the determination of the legal obligations that Andy owes to his tenants. After inheriting the property, Andy decided to offer the other floors to tenants and receives a monthly and weekly fee from the tenants. Andy has offered the first floor to Ben, his best friend, on a monthly rent agreement for 200 Euros for the first year. After deciding to sell the property and move in with Ethan, Andy could face legal issues concerning the contract that he entered with Ben. The agreement could also impact the agreement that Andy has with Claire, who pays 800 Euros per month for six years. The agreement between Andy and Claire could be jeopardized if the property was sold before the maturity of the contract between the two individuals. Andy is obligated to ensure that the tenants have access to the premises within the agreed period, but he also keeps a copy to each apartment separately.
Andy has a legal obligation to his tenants, some of them having agreements specified for long periods. For instance, Claire’s agreement is for six years, which would raise legal issues if Andy is to sell the property. Additionally, her best friend Ben, who pays a monthly rent for a year, would also be in a compromised situation if the property were to be sold, issues that would place Andy in a legal situation as per the contract. Additionally, the agreement between Andy and Danny operates weekly, and if the property is sold, the tenancy would be compromised. The legality of the agreement termination should be determined by laws relating to property and land. The sale of the property by Andy would undermine the arrangements made, which would raise legal issues and requires a determination by law.
The issue outlined above relates to the property and land law by general principle and could be used to determine the best actions if the case ends up in court. The termination of the tenancy agreement, in this case, would be determined by the landlord tenancy law that provides or the legal termination of tenancy agreements. The landlord-tenant law provides direction towards activities related to commercial and residential rental property. The rental agreement operates on the property law and under the law of contract that forms the basic foundations for mortgages and leases. Andy’s agreement with Claire, Danny, and Ben is regulated by the property and contract law by general principle. This claim means that the determination of Andy’s legal obligations concerning her agreement operates by the law of contract and the property law. The contract law and property law contain the relevant tenant and landlord bill that determines how the case of Andy should be decided.
Property law aids in the determination of the legality of evictions and how the landlord should carry out the process in the event it happens. For instance, property law provides various directions by general principle regarding the transfer of rights and obligations from the landlord to the tenant. The court would have to determine the rule in the case of Claire against her tenants in the event they push for a legal suit. The factors and elements to be determined could include the terms of the contract agreement between Ben and Claire and how the law applies if the property was sold. The law of contract and the property law could aid in the determination of the best auctions that Andy could take to ensure the involved parties get the best deal. Being the rightful owner of the property, Andy has the right to enter into agreements with tenants and spell out the terms by general rule.
If the issue reached a court of law, the property and contract law would be used to reach a decision. The first issue to consider is the determination of the legal obligations that Andy owes to her tenants in the agreement that he had with his best friend, Ben. If the issue reached the court of law, Andy should know of the legal implications that would arise and how to bests defend himself. According to the law of contract, Andy and Ben had an agreement recognizable by law, and in the vent, the issue is presented before the court; the judge and jury would look at the case based on the law of contract and property law to determine a ruling. The case relates to the property and land act, precisely the unity of possession in the common tenancy law of the United Kingdom.8 The unity of possession provision states that different individuals can have varied ownership in other parts of the building as per a given agreement.
Andy’s case, therefore, needs legal considerations to determine the rights that he owes to Ben in the event he decides to sell the property. The property sale would require the transfer of tenancy rights to the buyer were the building to be sold before the end of the one year agreed upon. In this case, Andy would be at a disadvantage as the agreement with Ben fits a legal contract law. The contract law provides that any agreement should have an offer and a consideration primarily measured in terms of a right deprived, such as money or property. 9 Therefore, according to the law, Andy is obligated to ensure he provides the rights agreed on in the contract agreement of offering notice of transfer of ownership due to property sale. The landlord-tenant law would play an essential role in determining Andy’s rights to Ben and the legal implications attracted.
Secondly, if the issue made it to court, Andy would face a serious legal situation considering the agreement he had with Claire. The agreement between Claire and Andy fulfills the basic requirements of the law of contract. The law of contract is characterized by an offer, acceptance, and consideration. 10 The offer originates from Andy’s offer to Claire for the top floor at 800 Euros for six years. Claire accepts the deal and agrees to pay the rental money due, which makes it a consideration for the contract. The two have an agreement written on a form that seals her deal with her tenant Claire. Therefore, the determination of the cessation of the contract and the legal obligations due lies in the remedies for the law of contract or a settlement deal between the involved parties.
The sale of the freehold property would raise legal issues that would challenge the tenants’ rights and, therefore, would require careful determination of which rights Andy owed to his tenants. The agreement between Andy and Denny had does not carry any legal obligations and rights owed compared to Claire and Ben’s case. This occurrence is because the agreement lacks all the components of the law of contract as there is no period specified for the continuation of the tenancy agreement. Denny pays her rent every week. If Andy decides to sell the property, the only consideration that ties him to rights owed to the tenant includes the provision of a notice earlier in advance. Benny enjoys tenancy at will, which operates on for as long as the landlord and the tenant desire.11 The decision based on the termination of the agreement between Denny and Andy would be determined by the two parties without legal action.
The determination of the legal rights owed explained in the analysis sections provides a direction for the best practices in determining the best solution for Andy. Andy should consider agreeing with his potential buyers to continue with the contract agreement between him, Claire, and Ben for the remainder of their stay at the property. This action would ensure that the rights of the tenants remain protected. However, if the buyer refuses to accept the agreement, the next best thing would include the settlement of the two tenants with a considerable notice to look for other residential rental property. Selling the property before the contract’s maturity would raise legal issues to Andy, considering that they entered into an agreement and the sale of the property leads to Andy not meeting his end of the bargain.
However, the property sale would have minimal impact on Denny especially considering that he pays for his rent weekly. Denny’s arrangement with Andy operates by the provision of the landlord-tenant law, which provides that Denny enjoys tenancy at will. The tenancy at will continues to operate as long as the landlord and tenant desire. Therefore, the property sale to another [party would make the landlord wish for the tenancy no to continue, which acts in favor of Andy. The tenant has the freedom to sell the property after discussing with Denny and issuing a notice. The tenancy at will would favor Andy compared to the contract he has with Ben and Claire. According to what the law provides for the law of contract and the property law, Andy owes legal rights to Ben and Andy. If the issue shows up in court, he would have to provide a settlement that would arise due to contract termination by one party not meeting their end of the deal.
Allen & Overy. “Basic Principles of English Contract Law.” (n.d.): 5
Bayern, Shawn. “Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept.” Calif. L. Rev. 103 (2015): 67.
Cornell Law School, “Landlord-Tenant Law.” Legal Information Institute. [Open Access]: 1992.
Dixon, Martin. Modern land law. Routledge, 2021.
Smith, Roger J. Property law: cases and materials. Pearson Education, 2015: 739.
Dixon, Martin. Modern land law. Routledge, 2021.↩︎
Bayern, Shawn. “Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept.” Calif. L. Rev. 103 (2015): 67.↩︎
Smith, Roger J. Property law: cases and materials. Pearson Education, 2015: 739.↩︎
Allen & Overy. “Basic Principles of English Contract Law.” (n.d.): 5↩︎
Allen & Overly. 5.↩︎
The agreement between Adele and Beverley has something of value which makes it an enforceable contract in a court of law.↩︎
A contract cannot be legally binding if one or both parties are not in their correct state of mind.↩︎
Smith, Roger J. Property law: 367.↩︎
Allen & Overly. 5.↩︎
Allen & Overly. 5.↩︎
Cornell Law School, “Landlord Tenant Law.” Legal Information Institute. [Open Access]: 1992.↩︎