Land Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Land Law - Essay Example It can be seen that Piers’ behaviour is lawful given that he lawfully entered into a contract with Rupert where an agreement of sale of the house was reached between the two. A contract can be loosely described as a legally binding agreement between two parties (Gibson, 1988). Certain elements need to exist in the formation of a contract. In order for a contract to be legally binding, there should be an agreement between the two parties involved. According to Harvey v Facey [1893] AC552, every contract should consist of an offer made by one party and accepted by the other. If it involves buying and selling, the seller agrees to sell something and the buyer agrees to pay for the goods or products being sold. Thus, sale of goods or property is regarded as a legally binding contract. After buying the Sun House, Piers became the legal owner of the place and is entitled to full control of it hence his behaviour is legal when he makes the changes described above. This agreement of s ale is silent about the existence of a tenant, Heather who has a legal two year contract of renting the place. However, this agreement was made between her and Rupert, the previous owner. In actual fact, it is Rupert who was supposed to redefine Heather’s contract since he was selling the property to another new owner. Rupert could also have raised the issue with the new owner of the place if he was willing to accommodate this sitting tenant at the premises. However, this is not the case so Piers has the right to enjoy freedom at his newly acquired property. Indeed, this action can affect Heather who is unaware of what is happening but it is advisable to Piers that his behaviour is legal. On the agreement of sale of the house it is not stated that there is a tenant living there so there is no way Piers can be sued for something which he is not part of. By virtue of ordering Charlotte not to use his front drive, it is also advisable that his behaviour is within the legal confi nes of the law. The law of the land states that every person has a right to ownership to property and owners are protected by the laws of trespass to land. This can be supported by the case of Winder v. DPP [1996] 160 J.P.R 713, where the defendants were charged and convicted of aggravated trespass for intentionally disturbing a fox hunt on private property. As the new owner of the Sun House, Piers has a right to enjoy freedom without interference by trespassers hence his behaviour can be said to be lawful. Charlotte has to abide by the rules of the new owner of the place and she has to find another alternative route. In case of Jude who contributed 33% when the Sun House was initially purchased, it can be noted that Piers also has the right to tell him to leave. In the agreement of sale of the house, it was clearly spelled that Rupert was the sole owner of the place. In fact, it is Rupert who misrepresented the facts so this may not be a problem of the new owner of the house who bo ught it in faith on the basis of information he obtained from the seller when they entered into this particular agreement. A critical analysis of this case shows that Piers’ behaviour is lawful though it has a negative impact on the other parties affected as discussed above. 2. When Kevin the property developer finished renovating the previously dilapidated houses he bought, he