Formalities Flashcards
Benefits of formalities
Warns the parties who are entering into a transaction that their actions may have legal consequences Makes them stop and thinkAvoids rash decision makingParties cannot easily slip into a transaction If you write things down you see the gaps Clarifies rights and obligations
What are the best formalities?
Those that are required for the transaction to be legally valid
What else does formality protect from?
Pressure and duress
Evidentiary aspect of formalities
Writing shows proofGives the courts something to work off
Formalities from the view point of the state
Allows collection of taxes Gives data about the property market
Not legal unless a deed
S52 LPA 1925
The idea of channelling (fuller)
Channels the parties towards a particular legal goal
A legal estate can be created only by deed
LPA 1925 s52(1)
A legal estate is defined
LPA 1925 s205(2)(x)
Conveyance includes a mortgage and a lease
LPA 1925 s205(1)(II)
Is a deed enough to be legal?
Not in most cases, most need the title to be registered
A deed used to have to be signed, sealed and delivered
From 1926-1989
The need for a deal to be sealed was abolished in… By section…
1989LP(MP)A 1989 s1 (1)(b)
You need to make it clear that a deed is a deed
S1(2)(a) LPA
A deed needs to be signed witnessed and delivered
LPA 1925 s1(3)
Exceptions to a deed
Includes leases or tenancies not required by law to be made in writing LPA s52(2)(d) Not required for a term not exceeding 3 years
What is a periodic tenancy?
No defined end to the lease
Is a periodic tenancy an exception?
S54(2) It is an exception as each period of the tenancy is less than 3 years
EquityAny interest I. Land must be created or disposed of in writing signed by the disponor or her agent
LPA s53(1)(a)
EquityA declaration of a trust in land must be evidenced in writing, signed by some person who is able to declare such trust
LPA s53(1)(b)
EquityThe disposition of a beneficial interest much be in writing and signed by the disponor or her agent
S53 (1)(c)
EquityA contract to dispose of an interest in land
LP(MP)A s2
A contract to dispose land under equity must:
Be made in writingIncorporate all the agreed termsBe signed on the behalf of all parties
Section 2 formalities do by apply to
Leases for a term not more than 3 years Trusts
Yaxley v gotts
The use of constructive trust to overcome a void contract Money Loss of opportunity
The formalities for a will
Wills act 1837 s9Must be in writingTwo witnessed (at the same time)Witnesses must attest and sign the will in the testators presence
Proprietary estoppel
Can be used as a sword or a shield
Willmott v barber
Says that A must know of Bs mistaken belief for PE
Taylor fashions ltd
Need not amount to the promise of a specific proprietary right so long as it is certain enoughPE
What are the ingredients for PE?
EitherAssurance or promiseORAcquiescence
Dilwyn v Llewely
Assurance in PEIndicates to B that B has a right
Crabby v Arun
Promise indicates to B that B will squire a right in the future
Taylor v Dickens
Promise to leave property by will
Munt v Beasley
Acquiescence- a merely passively stands by while B acts to her detriment
Where do we find equity?
LPA s1 (3)
Greasley v Cooke
Reliance often involves Bs expenditure of money But not necessarily In assurance or promise cases, reliance is readily inferred from detrimental acts
Coombes v smith
Bs act must have been done in reliance or As assurance, promise or acquiescence
Gillett v holt
detriment must be substantial Promises of inheritance which saw G act to his detriment Unconscionability- the extent of the detriment Remedy- transfer of some of the property
Stevens and cutting v Anderson
The onus is on B to show that she acted to her detriment
Unconscionably
Relates to A later denying B use of the landThis is NOT ENOUGH by itself, but a necessary ingredient
Cobbe v yeomans row management
Planning permission the developer did not have a claim in PE Unconscionability- whether the parties are in business and should have realised the need for formalities
Factors included in unconscionability
The relative positions of A and BExtent of the detrimentWhether the parties are in business and should have realised need for formalities
Sled more v Dalby
Unconscionability The relative positions of A and B Remedies- unjust enrichment
Throner v major
The court considered estoppel generally and the assurance required to be relied upon as PE
what we need for PE
AssuranceReliance on assuranceDetriment cannot be minimal Such circumstances that it would be unconscionable to allow the landowner to escape from his promise (why oral assurances can be enforced despite non- compliance with formalities)
Jennings v rice
RemediesThe court has a wide discretion to satisfy the equity, but the relief must be designed to avoid an unconscionable result Most important = proportionality between expectation and detriment (remedies)
Crabb v Arun
RemediesWe need to use the minimum equity to do justice Remedy- easement
Qualities to remedies
- expectation- detriment- unjust enrichment- proportionality
Pascoe v turner
Remedies- expectationExpenditure of money in reliance of the encouragement and acquiescence of another party may create PE Remedy- conveyance of few simple
Dodsworth
Remedies- an example of detrimentWere awarded right to occupation until cost of improvements reimbursed
Re basham
Remedies Constructive trust
Wayling v jones
RemedyMonetary compensation as land already sold
Wood v smith
Writing in capital letters can be sufficient for a signature as it has intent
First post homes v Johnson
Says we need a narrow understanding of a will, written by hand
