Topic 5: Torrens Title Intro reasons why Torrens Title came into being old system very complex tracing title back security of title the registration of deeds doesn’t fix the above issues especially security General Register of deeds difficult to search General Register does not fix any defect Under Torrens Title indefeasibility of title started with Robert Torrens in SA NSW started 1963 Since then all grants under Torrens Title At conveyance of old property transferred to Torrens US
Premium Property law Property Easement
The Once and Future King King Arthur of the Arthurian legends is one of the most unique characters in the history of literature. Since he has been depicted by a variety of writers‚ there is more than a single description of his personality. The Arthur we know is actually a conglomerate of many different interpretations of one character. For this reason‚ his character and very person haven ’t been too consistent through the legends. The earliest Arthurian Legends which are also some of the earliest
Premium King Arthur Le Morte d'Arthur
requirement. The Court of Appeal upheld that ‘equity will not allow a statute enacted to prevent fraud to be used as an instrument of fraud’. Therefore‚ in order to prove the express trust‚ parole evidence was included‚ despite the statutory requirement of written evidence in s53(1)(b) (Penner‚ Law of Trusts). This is known as the ‘doctrine of Rochefoucauld v Boustead and it is reflected in this quote given by Lindley LJ. He is essentially declaring that equity abhors the use of statute as an instrument
Premium Trust law
October 7‚ 2012 “Equity does not destroy the Common law but assist it”. Explain the statement with reference to decided cases. Equity is a body of law that is found upon the principles of fairness and conscience. It piecemeal development took place over many years as a direct result of the injustices often caused by a strict application of the common law. However‚ equity does not destroy the common law but help
Premium Common law
Page 1 ICLR: Chancery Division/1949/CANNON v. HARTLEY. - [1949] Ch. 213 [1949] Ch. 213 [CHANCERY DIVISION] CANNON v. HARTLEY. 1948 Nov. 19‚ 22. ROMRE J. Settlement - Deed of separation - Covenant to settle after-acquired property - Breach of covenant Volunteer’s right to claim for damages. A volunteer who is a party to a deed and a direct covenantee thereunder is entitled to damages for breach of a covenant contained in the deed. By a deed of separation made on January 23‚ 1941‚ between the defendant
Premium Marriage Trust law Husband
CONTRACTS ASSIGNMENT UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAINS SUBMITTED BY: KARAN SHANKAR IV Semester‚ SVKM’s Pravin Gandhi College Of Law‚ Mumbai 01 Index of authorities 03 02 Introduction 05 03 Research Methodology 07 04 Chapters 08 05 Chapters (cont) 15 06 Conclusion 17 07
Premium Common law Contract
functions. Even a lay person will be able to guess what these two functions are. Contract law is conceptualised‚ codified and enforced primarily for two reasons: Ensuring that contracts are formed legally and in keeping with the principles of justice‚ equity and good conscience; and specifying remedies for an injured party if the other performs a breach of the contract. The subject under discussion. The subject of this paper is extremely broad - it is supposed to deal with breach of contract and specific
Premium Contract law Contract Breach of contract
information technology. This technology now reaches into almost every area of our lives and it is easy to predict that this phenomenon is only going to grow. My personal belief is that this presents a variety of dangers. It is highly likely that in the future there will be comparatively few aspects of our lives that will not be influenced by computer technology. The probability is that it will control more and more forms of communication‚ transforming fields such as education and business when video-conferencing
Premium Computer Personal computer Communication
However‚ a deed executed as a result of undue influence practiced upon the grantor is voidable rather than void[3]‚ and if‚ before the grantor takes steps to avoid the deed‚ the grantee therein conveys the premises to an innocent purchaser‚ a court of equity will extend protection to such purchaser.[4] Undue influence constitutes an equitable ground for the cancellation of a deed.[5] Undue influence is distinguishable from duress‚[6] in that undue influence is a more subtle domination of the grantor’s
Premium Law Contract Common law
there was no actual earmarking or physical segregation of the wine sold to different customers. The wine company became insolvent‚ and the receiver claimed that all the wine still belonged to the company – a claim that was upheld. 3. The rules of equity cannot provide a solution to this problem. There is no room in sale of goods law for the notion that an equitable title might pass or an equitable interest be created‚ however well established
Premium Ownership Property Property law