Property Law Master Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Property Law Master - Case Study Exampleor acted to her detriment on the hindquarters of the common intention.In a statement made by skipper Bridge emphasizing that, an express agreement by the parties to share the ownership of a land establishes a constructive trust. He specifically said that, The first and fundamental question which must always be resolved is whether independently of any inference to drawn the conduct of the parties in the course of the sharing the family as their home and managing their joint affairs, there has at any prior to acquisition, or exceptionally at some later date, been anyBased on the facts of the case of Eves v Eves3 and Grant v Edwards4 where there are similar situations to the above cited cases which were good examples of constructive trust created through an express common raise. ... He further said that the said house was intended for their family to live in. In Grant v Edwards6, a man purchased a house for him and his lover and placed it his name alone with the reason that it will detriment the divorce proceeding of the woman. In both of these there was in truth and in fact but a simulation of common interest for the truth to the matter is that the men had no intention of including the women in the ownership. However, the recent cases of Yaxley v Gotts and touchstone Homes plc v Luff Developments Ltd are deemed to have the true common interest intention meanings in them. In the case Yaxley v Gotts7, this case decided by the administration of Appeals held that this is a case of proprietary estoppel on the grounds that a constructive trust was established on the basis of an oral understanding with a builder that he would acquire the ground floor, so with this premise in mind, he did the work to convert and refurbish the said house into flats. On the other hand, in Banner Homes plc v Luff Developments8 the Court of Appeals held that a constructive trust was formed by the agreement of twain companies to acquire a prop erty on joint venture but one of the said companies without the experience of the other went ahead to develop the site on its own.The statement made by Peter Gibson LJ of the Court of Appeals which stressed in Drake v_________________2 1991 1AC 107 at 1323 1975 1 WLR 13384 1986 Ch. 6385 1975 1WLR 13386 Although they shared the same name, they were unmarried. She had changed her name to his by deed poll.7 2000 Ch 1628 2000 2 All ER 117W23636-3Whipp,9 that the principles identified in Lloyd Bank plc v Rosset did not require the parties to have reached a common