Question 1
a) Property 77 is subject to the restrictive covenant contained in the transfer of land between Ashley Cooper and Deepa Singh on 3 June 2001. This right of way in common is only by foot, as per the charges registered on 28 June 2001. The charge also restricts the transferee of the property from erecting any other structures or buildings on the property.
The right of way spoken here is an easement right. An easement will arise if without it, the dominant land, which is property 75 could not be used at all. It is not enough even when the use is for reasonable, convenient, or effective use of the property. Thus, if Wotton claim to the right of way for the cares, it may amount to personal benefit or advantage. This cannot be an easement right. However, the easement regarding the cars can be allowed if the exercise of the right leaves the owners of property 75 enough room for them in the remainder of their land. In Batchelor, it was held that an exclusive prescriptive right to park the car would have left the plaintiff without reasonable use of their land. The test is the degree of exercise of the right. If you are seeking law dissertation help, understanding these intricacies is crucial.
Applying the rules to the present case, Wotton cannot ask for right of way for the cars from the east end of the track as it would be personal benefit or advantage. However, with regard to entry from the west end, it could ask for the right as it will not interfere with owners of property 75 with their enjoyment of the land. It will leave enough room for them for their reasonable use of the land. The use of the west end for cars entry will not be an unreasonable exercise of the right.
For attaining the right of way from the west end, there must be an express grant in the form of a deed that must be registered.
In regard to building covered parking spaces for their clients to the rear of the Property, this will not be achievable. The charge registered on 28 June 2001 contains the restrictive covenant that structures or buildings cannot be built on the property. If the parking spaces are allowed to be constructed and if the entry of cars of Wotton’s clients are allowed, it cannot be termed a reasonable exercise of the right of way. This will lead to a claim of exclusive or joint ownership. The only way to remove such restrictive covenants, which may not be guaranteed, would be by complying with the conditions set forth in Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. According, the Lands Chamber will use their legal discretion to discharge or modify the restrictive covenants affecting land but not all. It will determine if the restrictions are obsolete; would impede owners of property 75 for their purposes; or if removed or modified would cause damage to owners of property 75.
Q2.
SRA Rule 6.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms provides that a law firm cannot act for two or more clients regarding the same matter. The firm has separate duties to act in the best interests of the clients and such a duty will give rise to a significant risk of a conflict of interests.
In this case, significant risk will arise because the title check of the property is still pending. The result of which will definitely have an impact on the negotiation of the terms of the contracts between Liden and Wotton. If such a significant risk is not involved, G&W can act for both of the parties. If the parties share all the relevant information and the parties have
agreed on all of the relevant term, G&W can act for both of them. However, in this case, title check will produce the right of way in common that goes against the plan of Wotton to build parking spaces, which affects its plan of running it operation in property 77. This may lead to a substantive negotiation between Wotton and Linden. In such case, there will be a conflict of interests and G&W cannot act for both the parties.
The only way to act for both the parties if G&W has consent of both of them in writing and G&W finds its reasonable to act for the parties. In this case, G&W can only act for them, if the parties and G&W find it beneficial for the parties in terms of speed, convenience, and cost.
Q3
a. Part 2 Condition A1 has been incorporated into the contract. Part 2 provision applies when the sale is not taxable, which include property used for the purposes of dwellings
relevant residential purpose, or for a relevant charitable purpose. Since Woton’s use of the property is for business purposes and does not come under these purposes, Part 2 cannot be used. Thus, Part 2 is not acceptable.
Continue your exploration of Legal Analysis of Will Drafting with our related content.
Academic services materialise with the utmost challenges when it comes to solving the writing. As it comprises invaluable time with significant searches, this is the main reason why individuals look for the Assignment Help team to get done with their tasks easily. This platform works as a lifesaver for those who lack knowledge in evaluating the research study, infusing with our Dissertation Help writers outlooks the need to frame the writing with adequate sources easily and fluently. Be the augment is standardised for any by emphasising the study based on relative approaches with the Thesis Help, the group navigates the process smoothly. Hence, the writers of the Essay Help team offer significant guidance on formatting the research questions with relevant argumentation that eases the research quickly and efficiently.
DISCLAIMER : The assignment help samples available on website are for review and are representative of the exceptional work provided by our assignment writers. These samples are intended to highlight and demonstrate the high level of proficiency and expertise exhibited by our assignment writers in crafting quality assignments. Feel free to use our assignment samples as a guiding resource to enhance your learning.