The determinate term
Concerning the case of Furness V Bond, a lease should have a commencement period that must be certain. For one who wishes to have an agreement for a future lease, the lease will be termed to be void unless the date to start the agreement is specified, as observed in the case of Harvey V Pratt. This date should be clearly stated either from an express term in the contract or by inference. In a lease, the landlord may wish to permit the use of his property for an uncertain period, as observed in the case of Lace V Chantler. Wherever a lease exists, there is usually a fixed period. Each party should be well satisfied to avoid being held to this fixed duration since, to some extent, conflicts may arise due to the fixed duration.
In avoiding this, periodic tenancy should restrict the tenant’s rights in giving notice unless for a specified purpose during a known period. In this element of identifying a lease, the duration of the lease being certain means that granting the lease for life would not be applicable under general rules. As applied in determining a lease, this element then conveys the right to control the use of the premises for a specified period in exchange for consideration alongside other conditions.
A term less than that of a grantor. do my history homework: do my history homework
A term less than that of a grantor
Following section 23 of the LTA 1954, the owner in fee simple can grant a lease of his property for any term since the fee simple is effectively perpetual. This implies that nothing can prevent the grantor from giving a lease to a tenant for 9000 years. If this happens, then the contract is identified as a lease. This also translates that even though there can only be one fee simple estate in one premise, there can be more than one term of years. It is also true under this factor that a tenant can grant the lease of the property to a subtenant as long as the sublease will last for a short period than the original lease. It follows that, if the lease exists, the subtenant can also grant a further lease of the exact property to an under tenant as long as the under-lease lasts for a short period as compared to the sublease.
Protection of mortgagors under current law. us history essay help
Protection of mortgagors under current law
As prescribed under section 23(1) (a) of the land registration Act 2002, and with reference to the case of Gomba Holdings(UK) Ltd V Minories, the mortgagee, and the mortgagor shall have protection. Under consideration of the past decade, real estate credit markets have been transformed from locally segmented mortgage markets into an integrated national capital market. As a result, lawyers and policymakers have undertaken to examine the legal rules governing real estate finance as the most venerable areas of law and area demanding changes. Among the laws made in this case are among the criticism protecting mortgagors from the effect of mortgage default and foreclosure. Such laws that seem to cover the mortgagor are prohibitions made on deficiency judgments and statutory rights of redemption. Although it appears that these laws are effective in safeguarding mortgagors, the laws have faced constant attacks because they increase the cost of home credit without any corresponding benefit to borrowers, and this indicates that the protection of mortgagors is yet to be satisfactory. Debates have been held over whether to repeal mortgagor protection laws which are accompanied by little evidence hence unsatisfying the satisfaction of the mortgagor. In examining the extent to which the mortgagor protection laws can be justified, the mortgagor protection laws have indeed erred in focusing their analysis on satisfying mortgagors. To ensure the protection of the mortgagor, the focus should be based on reconceptualizing mortgagor protection laws as a form of insurance against the effect of default and foreclosure. Under this perspective, the mortgagor protection is at a position of promoting economic efficiency though not frequently exercised by the borrowers. In such this are not incorporated to the mortgagor protection laws, the satisfactory protection deemed to be effective. As per the research conducted in examining the mortgagor protection laws, it is concluded that the laws generate substantial costs. In determining the costs of mortgagor protection laws, the test of simulation value is adopted. The simulation results indicate that home mortgagor loan interest rates are relatively incentives to the existence of mortgagor protection laws and that the incremental costs of these laws are pretty modest. Using multiple regression analysis in estimating the effect of state mortgagor protection laws on the state interest rate, it is clear that the results are consistent with the value of simulation. From this point, it is concluded that mortgagor protection laws have much smaller satisfaction. Considering whether the private market can be relied upon in supplying a level of mortgagor protection, the market is not able to provide an efficient level of protection due to the imperfectness of both lenders and borrowers. In this case, the government dissemination of information is unlikely to solve the safety of the mortgagor to a good point. In this perspective, if a state chooses to use the laws of protecting mortgagor, then the laws limit its scope to homeowners. The state legislators wishing to protect mortgagors without favoring the statutory rights of redemption might consider adopting an alternative form of mortgagor protection such as the compulsory system of mortgage foreclosure insurance. One of the main objectives of mortgage foreclosure law, as aimed at protecting mortgagor, is to ensure that sheriff and judges or trustees sell the property for a relatively equal price to its market value for several reasons; this rarely happens. As a result, properties must be marketed for an extended period before generating a high bid, and the purchasers must pay cash for the property. All these aspects result in the mortgage purchasing the property at the foreclosure sale of a nominal offer.
The consequences of the ownership of the property. online history assignment help: online history assignment help
Advice to the Triplets (the parties) to the consequences of the ownership of the property
As per section 1 of the Law of Property Act 1964, if parties agree to own a property as joint tenants, the provisions of this section identifies each tenant to have an equal interest in the property. This includes the financial interests and other benefits resulting from the tenancy. As per the provisions of section 184 and by holding the facts and the verdict made in the judgment of the case of Dudgeon V Kingdoms, the agreement made in joint tenancy creates a right of survivorship which conveys that if one party dies, its interests are transferred to the surviving parties. Considering the case of the Triplets, the parties entered into a joint tenancy. The main challenge and the source of the consequences rooted itself from the death of Simone as one of the tenants in the tenancy. As per the provisions laid under the Law of Property Act 1964, this instance was of significant impact to the tenancy, and it translates that what the parties had planned could not go on as proposed. However, the above occurrence had the following consequences to the remaining parties; Alex and Lorraine:
The property will not be passed under the terms of Will. history assignment help in canada
The property will not be passed under the terms of Will.
The provisions of section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 stipulate that a property that is owned under joint tenancy cannot be passed under the terms Of Will upon the death of one tenant. This law applies to all jointly owned property agreements despite the number of tenants present. By holding the verdict and the facts of the case of Wall V Munday, the right of survivorship rejects the terms of Will in sharing a jointly owned property. If one tenant dies, the asset in question does not pass to the personal representatives as part of the deceased tenant’s share. Instead, the property passes to the surviving tenants. By applying the case of the Triplets to these requirements and holding the facts discussed, the first consequence arising from the tenancy made by the three parties is that the share of Lorraine would not be shared as per the Will though she is alive. Following the death of Simone, it translates that Alex and Lorraine will have complete control over the property. Even if Lorraine is alive, the parties mentioned in her Will, will never at any given time get a share of the property. Alex’s property’s share will not be shared as initially agreed unless Alex and Lorraine get involved in an agreement on how to share the property. As observed from the judgment made in the case of Corin V Patton, no one can take possession of any portion of the property not unless Alex and Lorraine decide to share the property by themselves. In sharing the property, both Alex and Lorraine will incorporate the share of Simone. By applying the right of survivorship, a third party will not be involved in the sharing of the property. This implies that if Alex wishes to share the property with Lorraine, the agreed price of between $250,000 and $300,000, which was to be given to Alex, will automatically change. This is because the share of Simone will be shared between the surviving tenants, and thus an increase will be observed in these prices. Under this perspective, The Big Project charity, as mentioned in Lorraine’s Will, will not be involved in the sharing of the property.