SQE 1 FLK 2 Dec Mock Flashcards
A trust instrument is silent on the investment duties of its trustees. The trustees are professionals and are considering a diverse investment portfolio (‘the portfolio’) which will include land in the UK and shares in a number of energy companies. The beneficiaries have strong views on the environment and want the trustees to invest only in sustainable energy companies.
Can the trustees invest in the portfolio?
A-No, because trustees are not permitted to invest in land of any sort.
B-No, because the trustees must have regard to the beneficiaries’ wishes.
C-Yes, but the trustees must consider the suitability of the investments, and the need for diversification.
D-Yes, but the trustees must obtain and follow proper advice.
E-Yes, but the trustees must exercise such care and skill as would reasonably be expected of any trustee.
Option C is correct. Section 4 of the Trustee Act 2000 provides that when exercising a power of investment the trustees must have regard to the standard investment criteria: suitability and diversification.
Option A is wrong because under s.8 TA 2000 the trustees can invest in UK land.
Option B is wrong because the beneficiaries cannot force the trustees to follow their wishes because the trustees are exercising a discretion and the beneficiaries cannot control trustee discretions.
Option D is wrong. Under s.5 TA 2000, trustees must obtain and consider advice about the way in which they exercise their power of investment, unless it is reasonable in the circumstances for them not to obtain that advice. However, they are not obliged to follow that advice.
Option E is wrong, as a higher standard of care is expected of professional trustees.
A man died six months ago. His estate includes a valuable oil painting which the man bought at auction for £10,000 eight years ago. He paid the auctioneers £2,000 by way of auction fees when he acquired the painting. The painting was valued at the man’s death at £25,000. The man’s personal representatives (PRs) are considering selling the painting now, during the estate administration period, as the artist has just died, causing prices of his work to increase dramatically. The painting has just been valued at £40,000.
What is the acquisition value of the painting, for capital gains tax purposes, if it is sold now?
A-£40,000.
B-£25,000.
C-£15,000.
D-£12,000.
E-£10,000.
Option B is correct as the PRs would be deemed to acquire the painting at probate value, namely £25,000. Any gain made by the deceased during his period of ownership is effectively wiped out and there is an uplift to probate value on his death.
Option A is wrong as this figure would represent the disposal proceeds if the painting was sold at its current valuation.
Option C is wrong as this figure represents the gain made when calculating the PRs’ potential CGT liability.
Option D is wrong as this figure represents the deceased’s initial expenditure (acquisition cost and incidental costs of acquisition) but this figure is not used when calculating the gain for the PRs’ potential CGT liability. Probate value will be substituted.
Option E is wrong as this figure represents the deceased’s acquisition cost, but this figure will not be used when calculating the PRs’ potential CGT liability. Probate value will be substituted.
A partner of a law firm is selling her residential house. Another partner of the same law firm is acting on the sale. The buyer (not connected with the law firm) pays a deposit for the house to the law firm to be held as stakeholder.
Which pair of double entries shows how the receipt of the deposit should be recorded?
A-Debit cash account client section
Credit buyer’s ledger account client section
B-Debit cash account business section
Credit stakeholder ledger account business section
C-Debit cash account client section
Credit stakeholder ledger account client section
D-Debit cash account business section
Credit seller’s ledger account business section
E-Debit stakeholder ledger account client section
Credit cash account client section
Option C is correct. Deposits held as stakeholder are client money under Rule 2.1(b). This remains the case notwithstanding that the seller in this case is a partner of the law firm acting on the sale. Under Rule 8.1, all dealings with client money must be appropriately recorded on the client side of a separate client ledger account for each client or other person. A stakeholder deposit is held jointly for buyer and seller and so is recorded on a separate stakeholder ledger account. (Alternatively, it can be recorded on a client ledger account but with wording to reflect the fact that it is stakeholder money but that was not an option here.)
Option A is wrong. The money is being held as stakeholder, not for the buyer alone.
Option B is wrong. The receipt of the deposit as stakeholder is the receipt of client money. The deposit must therefore be held in the client bank account and not the business bank account. Option D is wrong for similar reasons (plus the money is being held jointly for the buyer and the seller and the firm cannot simply record the money as held for the seller alone).
Option E is wrong. The receipt of the money should be recorded through a debit entry in the cash account not a credit entry.
A man and his friends went to the pub to take part in a pub quiz. The man drank a large amount of alcohol over the course of the evening. When the results were announced the man and his friends were annoyed at losing. They started shouting abuse in the direction of the winning table and one of the women from the winning team approached the man’s table brandishing her winning trophy in her hand and laughed at the man calling him a loser. The man pushed her out of the way and punched her once as he ran past her. The woman fell backwards against the bar and bruised her arm. When interviewed the man said he was so drunk he mistakenly thought the woman was going to strike him over the head with the metal trophy and he pushed her to prevent the attack.
If the defendant is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm can he successfully rely on the defence of self-defence?
A-Yes, because he acted using reasonable force in response to the attack.
B-Yes, because whilst the force he used was disproportionate, it was not grossly disproportionate in the circumstances.
C-Yes, because the man will be judged on the basis of his honest albeit mistaken belief. It need not be a reasonable belief.
D-No, because his mistaken belief in the need to defend himself with force was caused by his voluntary intoxication.
E-No, because voluntary intoxication is not a defence to basic intent offences.
Option D is correct. For the defence of self-defence to succeed the defendant must use reasonable force in the circumstances. He may be judged based on his honest, albeit mistaken belief as to the circumstances - R v Williams (Gladstone) [1984]. However, where the mistaken belief in the circumstances and the need to defend himself is due to his voluntary intoxication the defence of self-defence must fail - R v O’Grady [1987]. Here the man mistakenly believed he was facing an attack due to his voluntary intoxication. In the circumstances, there was no need for him to defend himself with force and the defence will fail.
Option A is wrong because it does not take account of the fact that he was mistaken in his belief that force was needed and that mistake was due to his intoxication.
Option B is wrong because although disproportionate force may be regarded as reasonable provided it is not grossly disproportionate, this only applies to householder cases where a defendant uses force on someone they have found in their dwelling. The man is in a pub, not his home, so that standard does not apply here.
Option C is wrong because while it correctly states that a defendant may be judged based on his honest albeit unreasonable belief it does not take into account that this was due to his intoxication.
Option E is wrong because the man is not denying he had mens rea for the offence and is not pleading intoxication, so the question of whether the offence is one of basic or specific intent is not relevant.
Two years ago, a client bought a commercial freehold premises. The previous owner had granted a 40-year lease to a newsagent in 1995. The lease contained a covenant by the tenant to pay rent quarterly. The newsagent assigned the lease to a bookstore. Last year the bookstore assigned the lease to a mobile phone retailer. The mobile phone retailer has failed to pay the last quarter’s rent.
Against whom can the client bring a claim for the outstanding rent?
A-The newsagent and mobile phone retailer.
B-The bookstore and the mobile phone retailer.
C-The mobile phone retailer only.
D-The newsagent and the bookstore.
E-The newsagent, the bookstore and the mobile phone retailer.
Option A is correct.
The lease is an ‘old lease’ having been granted before 1 January 1996. Under an old lease:
The original tenant remains contractually liable for all covenants in the lease (privity of contract);
The current tenant will be liable for all real covenants whilst the lease is vested in them (privity of estate).
Accordingly, the newsagent remains liable as the original tenant under privity of contract, and the current tenant, the mobile phone retailer, is liable under privity of estate.
Option B is wrong. The bookstore is no longer liable as there is no privity of contract nor privity of estate.
Option C is wrong as the newsagent also remains liable as the original tenant, due to privity of contract.
Option D is wrong as the bookstore is no longer liable as there is no privity of contract nor privity of estate.
Option E is wrong as only the newsagent and the mobile phone retailer are liable for the reasons above.
A firm of solicitors is acting on behalf of a client and holds £100 in the client account for them. The firm pays £10 from petty cash in postage costs for sending documents to the client.
Which pair of double entries shows how the payment of the £10 should be recorded?
A-DR entry on the Client account business column
CR entry on the Petty Cash account business column
B-DR entry on the Client account business column
CR entry on the Cash account business column
C-DR entry on the Client account client column
CR entry on the Petty Cash account client column
D-
CR entry on the Client account business column
DR entry on the Petty Cash account business column
E-CR entry on the Client account client column
DR entry on the Cash account client column
Option A is correct because petty cash payments are always recorded in the Petty Cash account and Client account and in the business column. The entries are a DR entry on the Client account and a CR entry on the Petty Cash account.
Option B is wrong because the CR entry is on the Petty Cash account not the Cash account.
Option C is wrong because you make the entries in the business column not the client column. Petty Cash entries are always in the business column.
Option D is wrong because the Client account entry is a DR entry not a CR entry and on Petty Cash is a CR entry.
Option E is wrong because petty cash entries are in the business column and not the client column.
A woman was convicted of criminal damage valued at £3000 nine months ago in the magistrates’ court. She was given a two-month custodial sentence suspended for twelve months and also made the subject of an unpaid work requirement. The woman has now pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to theft from a shop of goods valued at £150 committed one month ago. She has so far fully complied with her unpaid work requirement from the original sentence.
Which of the following is a sentencing option for the magistrates in respect of the suspended sentence?
A-Order the custodial sentence originally ordered to take effect after a period of deferment to allow the defendant to put her affairs in order.
B-Order the custodial sentence originally suspended to take effect but for a longer period of time.
C-Amend the original order by imposing only community requirements on the defendant.
D-Amend the original order by extending the operational period or by extending the unpaid work requirement.
E-Commit to the Crown Court for breach of the suspended sentence
Option D is the correct answer. The other sentencing powers available to the Magistrates in respect of the suspended sentence are:
Order the custodial sentence originally suspended to take effect unaltered;
Order the custodial sentence to take effect, but for a shorter period of time, and/or substitute a lesser custodial period; or
Amend the original order by extending the supervision period.
Options A, B, C & E are wrong as they are not sentencing options available to the magistrates. Note that this is not a case where the magistrates could commit to the Crown Court for sentence as both offences will be treated a summary only offences.
A client is the tenant of commercial leasehold premises. The lease was granted three years’ ago and the tenant has agreed to assign the lease. The lease contains a fully qualified covenant against assignment.
Contracts for the assignment of the lease (incorporating the Standard Commercial Property Conditions – Third Edition 2018 Revision (‘SCPC’)) were exchanged today. At the time of the exchange the landlord’s consent to the assignment had not been obtained.
Which of the following best explains the position on landlord’s consent?
A-The landlord’s consent must be obtained prior to exchange of contracts or the exchange will not be binding.
B-The landlord is automatically deemed to have granted consent where the covenant is fully qualified.
C-The seller or the buyer may rescind the contract as the landlord’s consent has not been obtained prior to the exchange of contracts.
D-The completion date may be postponed to allow the landlord’s consent to be obtained.
E-The assignment can proceed to completion without landlord’s consent providing the landlord’s consent is obtained within five working days of the actual completion date.
Option D is the best answer. The landlord’s consent does not have to be obtained prior to the exchange of contracts (although it would be preferable commercially if it had been). The landlord’s consent must be obtained in order for the assignment to proceed to completion and the landlord can withhold consent if it is reasonable to do so. The SCPC provide for completion to be postponed until five working days after the seller notifies the buyer of the landlord’s consent or if a court declares the consent has been unreasonably withheld.
Options A and C are wrong as the landlord’s consent need not be obtained prior to exchange.
Option B is wrong, as the landlord can withhold consent if it is reasonable to do so.
Option E is wrong. Completion will be postponed until five working days after the seller notifies the buyer of the landlord’s consent (or if a court declares the consent has been unreasonably withheld).
A teacher was appointed a trustee of a small discretionary trust. The trust deed provided that the teacher could distribute the trust fund to such of the settlor’s children and in such shares as the teacher in her discretion saw fit.
Four years ago, the teacher distributed part of the trust fund to the settlor’s step-child. The teacher was not aware that the law generally does not extend the definition of ‘children’ to cover step-children. One of the settlor’s children (by blood) has brought a claim against the trustee seeking personal compensation.
Which of the following best describes why the claim might fail?
A-The claim will fail because the trustee honestly believed that the distribution to the step-child was permitted under the terms of the declaration of trust.
B-The claim may fail because although the trustee is in breach of trust, the trustee should be able to rely on a defence that her actions were honest and reasonable and she ought fairly to be excused.
C-The claim will fail because although the trustee is in breach of trust, the claim has been brought out of time.
D-The claim may fail because although the trustee is in breach of trust, the claim should be defeated by the operation of laches.
E-The claim will fail because until such time as the child has been selected as a beneficiary of the discretionary trust, the child has no standing to bring a claim.
Option B is the best answer. By distributing trust funds to someone who is not in the class of objects, the trustee is in breach of trust. However, by failing to recognise that step-children are not part of the class of ‘children’, the trustee may be able to obtain the benefit of the defence set out in s 61 of the Trustee Act 1925. The trustee’s mistake was honest and arguably in the context of a small, family trust, the trustee’s mistake (and omission to take prior legal advice) was reasonable, and given that this mistake is based on a legal technicality that not many people would know about, the court may agree that it would be fair to excuse the trustee from liability.
Option A is wrong. The fact that the trustee acted honestly does not mean that the trustee did not breach trust. However, it may give rise to a defence under s 61 of TA 1925.
Option C is wrong. The limitation period for bringing claims for breach of trust is six years. That limitation period has not yet expired.
Option D is not the best answer. The doctrine of laches will defeat a claim where the passage of time will cause detriment or prejudice to the trustee and/or her ability to defend any claim. It is unlikely that the passage of four years will have caused the trustee any additional detriment or prejudice. The facts are clear and the trustee’s ability to rely on the defence in s 61 of TA 1925 is not altered by the passage of time.
Option E is wrong. It is true that until such time as an object of a discretionary trust is selected, they are not a beneficiary in the strict sense. However, any object of a discretionary trust can commence proceedings to ensure that the trustees do not distribute trust property to anyone who is not a member of the class.
A tenant is occupying premises under a tenancy protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the 1954 Act). The contractual term of the tenancy will expire in four months’ time. The landlord is happy for the tenant to continue to occupy the premises after that date but wishes to increase the amount of rent payable as soon as possible.
Which of the following best describes whether the landlord should serve a section 25 notice today?
A-The landlord does not need to serve a section 25 notice: the tenant’s occupation is protected under the 1954 Act, but the landlord is free to impose new rental obligations once the original term has expired.
B-The landlord should not serve a section 25 notice as this will mean the tenant must vacate on the termination date specified in the notice.
C-The landlord cannot serve a section 25 notice: it could have done so up to six months before the contractual term was due to expire, but it is now out of time to do so.
D-The landlord can serve a section 25 notice now; the landlord should seek to end the current lease on the expiry of six months from the date on which that notice is served.
E-The landlord can serve a section 25 notice now; the landlord should seek to end the current lease on the expiry of 12 months from the date on which that notice is served.
Option D is the best answer. A landlord who wants to end the current lease so that a new tenancy can be granted on different terms (such as a higher rent) should serve a s 25 notice. The s 25 notice must state the date upon which the landlord wants the current tenancy to end. The notice must be served no less than six months and no more than 12 months before the termination date specified in the notice. The landlord can state in the section 25 notice that it will not oppose the grant of a new tenancy to the tenant. The service of the notice should prompt the start of negotiations between the parties as to the level of rent that will be payable under the new lease (assuming the tenant wishes to stay).
Option A is wrong. If a lease is protected by the 1954 Act, then all terms under that lease will continue unless and until terminated in accordance with the 1954 Act. As a result, unless the landlord takes action, the tenant will continue to occupy the premises under the original rent provisions.
Option B is wrong. A landlord can serve a s25 notice either where it wants the premises back or wants the tenant to continue to occupy the premises albeit under different terms. It is not correct that the tenant must leave on the termination date specified in the s25 notice, as the tenant is entitled to apply to the court for a new tenancy.
Option C is not the best answer. Whilst it is true that the landlord can no longer serve a section 25 notice to bring the current lease to an end on its contractual expiry date, it can serve notice to bring that lease to an end in six months’ time, which (in the circumstances) is the next best thing.
Option E is not the best answer. Whilst it is true that the landlord can serve a s25 notice specifying that the current lease will come to an end in 12 months’ time, the landlord wants to see an increase in the rent as soon as possible. The landlord therefore is best advised to serve notice terminating the current lease as soon as possible.
A company has a periodic tenancy of some business premises. The tenancy is not protected by any security of tenure regime as the company is not in occupation of the premises. Rent is expressed to be payable in advance on the historic quarter days, being 25 March, 24 June, 29 September and 25 December.
It is now 10 January. The landlord wishes to bring the lease to an end as soon as possible by serving notice on the company. The company is not in breach of any leasehold covenants.
If the landlord were to serve notice today, which of the following best describes the earliest date on which the lease will come to an end?
A-Immediately: the notice will allow the landlord to forfeit the lease and peacefully re-enter the premises.
B-Immediately: the notice will allow the landlord to disclaim the lease.
C-7 February: the landlord must give the company four weeks’ notice.
D-24 March: the lease will come to an end the day before the next rent payment is due.
E-23 June: the lease will come to an end when the next clear period expires.
Option E is correct. A periodic tenancy can be brought to an end by either party serving notice to quit. The general rule is that one full period’s notice is required. In this case, each period lasts a quarter (ie 3 months). If notice to quit is served on 10 January, the earliest date on which the lease will come to an end is 23 June, being the end of the next clear period (25 March to 23 June).
Option A is wrong. We are told that the company is not in breach of any leasehold covenants. There is therefore no basis for the landlord to forfeit the lease and immediately re-enter the premises.
Option B is wrong. Disclaimer arises upon the liquidation of a tenant, the liquidator having the power to disclaim contracts which give rise to a liability to pay money or perform any onerous act. There is no ground on the facts for the landlord to disclaim the lease.
Option C is wrong. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 provides that landlords must give tenants at least 4 weeks’ notice before seeking possession of premises. However, the Act relates to premises let as dwelling houses where the tenant is in occupation, neither of which is the case here. In any event, the landlord in this case must give the tenant more than 4 weeks’ notice – the periods of the lease run on a quarterly basis, requiring the landlord to give the company at least 3 months’ notice.
Option D is wrong. The landlord must give the company at least one full period’s notice. We are already in the period that is due to expire on 24 March. The lease cannot therefore be brought to an end on that date as that will not give the company a full period’s notice.
A boy aged 14 years pleaded not guilty to a charge of robbery but is convicted of the offence following a trial in the Youth Court. The offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. This is the first time he has been convicted of an offence, although he has received youth cautions in the past for various acts of theft.
Will the Youth Court impose a custodial sentence?
A-No, because custodial sentences can only be imposed on offenders aged 15 years or over.
B-No, because the boy has never been previously convicted and therefore a referral order must be made.
C-No, because the boy is not a persistent young offender.
D-Yes, because the offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, meaning that the custody threshold has automatically been satisfied.
E-Yes, because the fact that this offence was committed after a history of youth cautions means that the court will likely be satisfied that a youth rehabilitation order will not be appropriate.
Option C is correct. As the offender is aged between 12 and 14 years, a detention and training order can only be imposed if he is a persistent young offender. As we are told that this is the boy’s first conviction, he is not a persistent young offender.
Option A is wrong. Detention and training orders can be imposed on juveniles from the age of 12 onwards, subject to various conditions being satisfied.
Option B is wrong. A referral order might have been an available sentencing option had the boy pleaded guilty to the offence, but the court cannot make a referral order in this case given the boy’s not guilty plea.
Option D is wrong. Robbery is an offence that grants the sentencing court a discretion as to whether a custodial sentence should be imposed. Just because the offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment does not automatically mean that the custody threshold has been met. In any event, the Youth Court cannot impose a detention and training order in this case given the age of the defendant and the fact that this is his first conviction.
Option E is wrong. The fact that an offence has been committed by a defendant who has previously been cautioned for similar offences does not automatically rule out a community sentence such as a Youth Rehabilitation Order. In any event, the Youth Court cannot impose a detention and training order in this case given the age of the defendant and the fact that this is his first conviction.
A client has instructed a solicitor to represent him in the purchase of a semi-detached house. The price agreed for the purchase is £400,000. The client intends to transfer electronically the sum of £40,500 to the solicitor, comprising £40,000 to use as the deposit for the purchase and £500 on account of costs.
Which of the following statements best describes what bank account details the solicitor should give to the client for the transfer of the money?
A- The solicitor must give details of both the law firm’s business bank account and client bank account as this is a mixed receipt of funds.
B-The solicitor should give details of the law firm’s business bank account but, once the sum of £40,500 is paid, should promptly arrange for the transfer of any client money to the client account.
C-The solicitor should give details of the law firm’s business bank account as the entire sum is business money.
D-The solicitor should give details of the law firm’s client account as the entire sum is client money.
E-The solicitor should give details of the law firm’s client bank account but, once the sum of £40,500 is paid, should promptly arrange for the transfer of £500 on account of costs to the business account.
Option D is correct because the entire receipt is client money (Rule 2.1) and must be paid promptly into the client bank account (Rule 2.3).
A man is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He has pleaded not guilty on the basis that he did not intend to assault the victim. The man had consumed a large amount of alcohol prior to the assault and as a result felt extremely intoxicated and did not know what he was doing.
Can the man rely on the defence of voluntary intoxication?
A-Yes, because assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a crime of basic intent and the client was so affected by drink that he didn’t form the necessary intention for the mens rea of the offence.
B-Yes, because assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a crime of specific intent and the client was so affected by drink that he didn’t form the necessary intention for the mens rea of the offence.
C-Yes, because assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a crime of basic intent and the client was so affected by drink that he didn’t form the necessary intention for the actus reus of the offence.
D-No, because the defence of voluntary intoxication is not available for assault occasioning actual bodily harm because it is a crime of basic intent.
E-No, because the defence of voluntary intoxication is not available for assault occasioning actual bodily harm because it is a crime of specific intent.
Option D is correct.
Voluntary intoxication can only be a defence to crimes of specific intent where the defendant was so affected by the drink/drugs that they did not form the necessary intention for the mens rea of the offence. It follows that voluntary intoxication is no defence to any basic intent crime that can be committed recklessly (or negligently, or if it is one of strict liability). Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a crime of basic intent and therefore the defence of voluntary intoxication is not available because assault occasioning actual bodily harm can also be committed recklessly.
Options A and B are therefore wrong because the defence of voluntary intoxication is not available.
Option C is wrong because voluntary intoxication affects the mens rea of the crime and not the actus reus. Also, voluntary intoxication is not available as a defence.
Option E is wrong because although it is correct to say that the defence of voluntary intoxication is not available, the reason is because assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a crime of basic intent, not specific intent.
Extra:
Basic intent refers to the general intention, recklessness or negligence to commit a criminal act, without the specific intention to achieve a particular purpose. This level of intent is often required to prove crimes such as assault, battery, or manslaughter, where the act itself is enough to establish guilt.
Specific intent refers to the intention to achieve a specific outcome of the criminal act. This level of intent is often required to prove more serious crimes, such as murder or theft, where the prosecution must prove that the defendant had a specific intent to achieve a specific outcome.
A few months ago, a purchaser completed the purchase of some unregistered land comprising a house and several fields. The contract for the sale stated that one of the fields was subject to an option agreement, under which the seller had given a neighbouring farmer the right to purchase one of the fields, provided that the farmer exercised the option in writing. Yesterday, the purchaser received a letter from the farmer claiming that the farmer was exercising the option to purchase the field and stating that last week the farmer had registered a C(iv) land charge in relation to the option agreement.
Is the farmer’s option to purchase the field enforceable against the purchaser?
A-No, because the option agreement was entered into by the previous owner who subsequently sold the land to the purchaser.
B-No, because the option agreement related to a matter in the future.
C-No, because the registration of the land charge was too late to protect the option agreement.
D-Yes, because the sale agreement provided that the sale was subject to the option agreement.
E-Yes, because the farmer has exercised the option in writing.
Option C is correct because the land charge needed to be registered not later than completion of the sale to the purchaser.
Option A is wrong because an option is a proprietary interest in land which can bind a purchaser of land but in order to be binding the option agreement needed to be protected by the appropriate duly registered land charge.
Option B is wrong because agreements relating to future matters can be enforceable if suitably protected.
Option D is wrong because the mere fact the sale agreement provided that the sale was subject to the option agreement is insufficient to make it enforceable against the purchaser in the absence of due registration of the appropriate land charge.
Option E is wrong because the mere exercise of the option agreement in writing is insufficient if the option agreement was not protected by the appropriate duly registered land charge.
