English Registered Land Law (problem Q'n) Essay

English Registered Land Law (problem Qn) - Essay ExampleIs she discharge to contest the problems or is she going to live on with it Let us take a close ascertain at the problems that might plague Pamela.Issue 1 1Brians twin brother, Robert, had contributed one third of the corrupt price when Brian bought the put up with the intention of living there with his brother and an express trust was drawn up confirming Roberts interest. However, Robert was often in and out of prison house for offences such as burglary and shoplifting and was in prison at the date Brian sold the house to Pamela.In this issue it is clear that Robert is not aware of the change deed executed by Brian, since Robert is in prison. Also, Brian is the sole proprietor of the Brampton plate. Brian, as mentioned has entered into an express trust with his brother. Through this express trust Robert disregard live in the house and not claim anything legally. Hence Brian selling the house to Pamela is legally valid and the bargain deed asserts the fact that Pamela is the bona fide buyer and Brian is the bona fide seller. The express trust executed between the brothers is not a legal instrument and whence not legally binding on the executed sale deed. Under these conditions Robert cannot hold Pamela to ransom nor can he ask Brian for his share of the money got from the sale. It is up to Brian to give Robert, if at all he wishes, any share. Basically it is a problem between the brothers and will not Pamelas stance as march proprietor of Brampton House.Issue 2 Philippa claims that on 1 September 2007 Brian let a room in the house to commence on 1 February 2008 when she is due to start work as a senior carriage at a major department store in the area.Philippas claim of being part of Brampton House as a tenant is valid - under the Tenancy Act prevailing at the time and place when the house was sold to Pamela. Pamela has to honour the savvy entered between Brian and Philippa. This is subject t o a pen agreement between Brian and Philippa. We are made to assume that there exists such an agreement. If there was no such compose agreement and it was only an oral arrangement that was discussed between Brian and Philippa, thence Philippa cannot do anything now under the present ownership of the house. Hence Philippa will be a headache for Pamela depending on what Philippa has to prove.Issue 3 Natasha, a neighbour and a friend of Brians, maintains that in August 2007, Brian entered into an agreement with her that she could use a line across the garden of Brampton House in order to take a shortcut to the main road and thereby reach the local gym far more quickly. Here, Brian entered into an agreement with her is assumed to be a written agreement. In such a scenario, Natasha has a right of passage through Brampton House irrespective of the owner. She can use the road that runs through the garden and continue to go to the local gym and Pamela cannot object to it. But this righ t of passage will be confined only to Natasha and will not be binding on any of her friends or relatives and or legal heirs.On the contrary if there was no such written agreement between Brian and Natasha then Natasha can still continue to use the path to reach her gym, provided Natasha can prove that she has been using the path for many years. It may be so, since Natasha is a neighbour of Brampton House, irrespective of t