Land Law Degree Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

refine right Degree - Case Study ExampleHence, the main issue is whether they do feasible wefts which would change them to gain full or total control of their retention. From this case study, it can only be implied that they were adapted to secure title register which in turn enabled them to be registered as joint proprietors of this property.However, according to the Law of Property Act 1989 section (1) (3), it should be noned that for them to be deemed to be the owners of the real kingdom property, they shall hire to be in possession of a valid feat stating as such. According to this section, a deed may only be taken to be valid if it was produced in writing through write by the seller of the land or property in the presence of witnesses who must also present to the validity of such signature. The other option as it is provided by this Act is that the seller may direct, and in his presence as well as that of two witnesses who must also append their signature. The third option which was available to Nitin and Miriam to them in terms of acquiring the deed was through the delivery of such document by Paul to them in person or by any other person who might have been authorised to do so. A closer look at this case study does not solicit these issues comprehensively. However, it is justifiable to infer that they were indeed able to obtain the deed subject to their registration. ... Most notably, ownership is unremarkably accompanied with the rights of possession and enjoyment by the actual owners. On a positive rejoinder, Thomas (276) notes that patented rights carry with them the right of easements and profits as it is provided by the land law. With particular case, it is apparent that Nitin and Miriam have not been able to enjoy any of these rights. With particular reference to Amy, it is possible for them to sue for redress on rationality that Paul asgestural or sublet part of the property without their consent. However, for this to hold, Nitin and Miriam shall have to prove that to the satisfaction of the tap that indeed Paul made that decision after they had legally acquired the real estate property. That being the case, wherefore they do not have to wait until next year since Amy is actually trespassing by justness of the fact that she was assigned the stable block by a stranger Paul having sold the property to them. In this regard, there is no legal lease agreement between the landlord and the tenant in the runner place. With this in mind, Amy can be sued for trespassing on private property as well for damages and thus be able to collect the rent as the legitimate owner of this real estate property. On the other hand, Nitin and Miriam have legal grounds to withhold their consent of lease to Amy according to the Landlord and live Act 1988. Based this act, they have grounds owing to the fact that Amy is not an individual of an excellent grapheme due to her drug abuse history. The fact that Amy is actually a noisy n eighbour due to her medicinal drug career provides another ground for Nitin and Miriam to evict her from their property even if such lease agreement was signed by Paul before the