Module 2 Legislation & Cases

Question 1

McBeath’s Trustee v McBeath

Answer 1

“Accepted as holograph” on Will of a disabled man who typed it, was accepted by the Courts instead of “Adopted as holograph” but seriously doubted would have allowed this in another legal doc that wasnt a Will - eg of Courts trying hard to validate Wills.

Question 2

Conveyancing Act 1874, s39 (repealed)

Answer 2

Provided for most defects to be cured so long as the document was signed and witnessed. So Eg - a lawyer or testator forgetting to sign each page and just signing hte last. Present a s39 petition and defect probably would be overlooked. Helps if there are carry over words between the pages etc.

Question 3

Baird’s Trustees v Baird 1955

Answer 3

Eg of where s39 did not cure defective Will. Will written on onse side of a bank form and a testing clause and signed on the reverse. It might have been cured if there had been some link between the 2 sides or the testing clause had run between the 2 sides etc.

Question 4

Williamson v Williamson 1977

Answer 4

s39 did not cure it. One of the witnesses signed D C R Williamson instead of David C R Wilson. Court said that s39 could not be brought into play. Before S39 could take effect at all, there had to be valid subscriptions of the granter and the 2 witnesses - the witness had failed to adhibit his normal signature or any customary equivalent.

Question 5

Draper v Thomason

Answer 5

signature “Connie” was allowed

Question 6

Rhodes v Peterson.

Answer 6

Signature “Mum” was allowed - although of course a certain amount of proof requied to be led before the Court is convinced in this and the above case.

Question 7

S3 The Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995

Answer 7

Conditions for valid execution (Self Proving):

Question 8

Baird’s Trustees v Baird

Answer 8

SHEET has been folded into more than one page and signed at the end of the sheet it would be regard as a validly executed if signed on the last page only