security 5+6 Flashcards

1
Q

lta mtg def obli

A

mtg can secure obligations beyond the repayment of money
e.g. perfomance or contractual duties

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

freedom of contract vs equity

A

FOC- supports enforceable collateral advantages
equity - once debt is payed, mor is free from conditions tied to the mtg

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

kreiglinger approach

A
  1. is it unconsionable
  2. is it a penal clause
  3. is it repugnant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q
  1. is it unconsionable
    kreiglinger approach
A
  • equity set aside uncon contracts
  • handled under the CCCFA
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q
  1. is it a penal clause
    kreiglinger approach
A
  • punishment for failure 2 meet terms is inconsistent with equitable right of redemption
  • if additional cost after default, could be penal and contradict equitable or contractual ROR
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q
  1. is it repugnant
    kreiglinger approach
A
  • contradicts both equitable and contractual ROR
  • clause w/ unfair advantage beyond the contractual term
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

clogs

A

clog is something that interferes, restricts, defeats MOR equitable ROR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

kreiglinger case facts

A
  • wool broker, sheep skin as by product of meat works
  • ## wool brokers give loan to meat works and agree that wool brokers have ROFR on the sheep skins
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

kreiglinger case what is the Coll adv

A
  • ROFR to sheep skins
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

kreiglinger case held

A
  • valid after the mtg
  • col adv was seperate to the mtg, two seperate doc
  • rained valid for the term
  • transaction was commercial, ROFR was primary, mtg secondary
    NOT A CLOG ON EROR
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

REEVE v Lisle

A

primary transaction was option to enter partnership and the mtg was secondary, was there only to protect the transaction if it fails

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Noakes v rice issue

A
  • requirement to buy liquor from the brewery (coll adv) could continue after mtg was repaid
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Noakes v rice HOL decision

A
  • the Coll adv was valid until mtg was paid
  • ## was making a free public house a tied public house and this is not the same property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

collateral adv can …

A

be valid until mtg relayed but after the term if they are informed they are seen as penal and a clog on the EROR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Bradley v Carrit facts

A
  • tea broker lender so could take security over shares in tea company and ensure broker was main supplier of tea
    -mee to be compensate if mor failed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Bradley v Carrit HOL decision

A
  • Coll adv could not continue after the loan was repayed
    -deemed clog on EROR bc it continued beyond repayment
  • it imposed on going restrictions on how shares could be used
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Bradley v Carrit and noakes v rice

A

no control over the shares and not being a free public house are the same

18
Q

limits on the collateral approach case

A

Lewis v frank love
jones v Morgan

19
Q

Lewis v frank love facts

A
  • mee feel into default
  • transfer of existing mtg was made
  • new mee required mor to grant option to purchase property
20
Q

Lewis v frank love held

A

court ruled that the option was a clog on the EROR and rejected it was part of contract
- opt to purchase tied to mtg are clog unless part or primary transaction

21
Q

jones v Morgan facts

A
  • mor sold land to reduce debt
  • mee agreed to release the part of security but required that half of the remaining land in trust for them
22
Q

jones v Morgan held

A

court held that it was a clog
- bc the terms varied the EROR
as it required payment of the debt PLUS half remaining property, unfair restriction

23
Q

MEE remedies against MOR in default

A
  1. sue
  2. enter into poss
  3. sell mtg prop
  4. appt receivers
24
Q

MEE remedies against MOR in default
1. sue

A

sue for breach of personal covenant ( promise to repay)
- no need for personal promise sometimes

25
MEE remedies against MOR in default 2. enter into poss
under s137 pla, a mee can enter into poss of mtg prop, with express power in mtg
26
MEE remedies against MOR in default 3. sell mtg prop
power to sell in mtg document - mee cannot purchase property via private sale
27
MEE remedies against MOR in default 4. appt receivers
- if the mor is a company, the mee may have power to appt receivers to manage the property
28
safeguards for the MOR
1. default req 2. PLA notice, s119 pla 3. right to redeem s97 4. mee duties
29
safeguards for the MOR 1. default req
- can only take action when the mor has DEFAULTED
30
safeguards for the MOR 2. PLA notice, s119 pla
- warning issued to mor -notice of mee intention to excercsie powers
31
safeguards for the MOR 3. right to redeem s97
- mor can redeem (repay and claim) at any time b4 the sale
32
safeguards for the MOR 4. mee duties
- obtain the best price at time of sale - act in good faith
33
apple feilds v Damesh DOC
- the court said that DOC under s176 PLA does not limit the basic equitable rule that the mee decides how to sell the mtg property
34
apple feilds v Damesh price
- mee not obliged to sell at highest only best possible price at the time of sale -
35
apple feilds v Damesh possesion
- mee not to request to obtain orders for possession to remove the mor from prop b4 selling - mee can sell even if mor is still in possession
36
mee remedy against trespassers case
Lockwood homes
37
Lockwood homes
- bank could pursue against Lockwood as the builders default occurred after the removal of the show home affirming the mee vulnerable position and need for protection
38
mee remedy against trespass
- mee can take action against trespasser if they are in possession of the property - on LW mee didn't possesion at the Time of act
39
mee remedy against trespass by relation
- mee can establsh a r2ip at the time if trespass, may have right 2 sue
40
mee remedy against trespass continuing
- occurs when a trespasser continues to act unlawfully on mtg prop after the mee acquires possession
41
trespass for damage 2 reversion
need to show PERMANENT damage - in Lockwood show that the home is more valuable with the show home
42
cousins v Wilson
- Purchaser can not make a trespass claim against third party as does not have possession of the property yet and cannot make a reversionary claim because an equitable interest is not a common law interest.