University Law Assignment: Case Law Analysis of Property and Contract

This document presents a detailed case law analysis addressing several legal issues related to property and contract law. The analysis begins with a case involving a landscaper who subdivided his land, granting purchasers of small lots the right to use a shared garden. The key issue is whether the purchasers retain their easement rights when the landscaper sells the larger lot to a developer. The analysis then moves to a case involving a caveat registered on a property title and the right of a vendor to rescind a contract. The legal principles of rescission and the requirement of proper notice are examined. Further, the document explores the Conveyance (Sale of Land) regulation, specifically the rights of a purchaser to cancel a contract based on undisclosed facts or breaches of warranty. Finally, the analysis addresses a scenario involving a right of way dispute between neighbors, discussing the conditions under which a right of way can be extinguished. The analysis is supported by relevant case laws, including Regency Villas Title Ltd V. Diamond Resort (Europe) Ltd, State Trading Corp of India v M Golodetz Ltd, and Benn V. Hardinge, providing legal justification and conclusions for each case.

CASE LAWS
Case Laws
[DATE]

Answer to Question number 1
Facts of the case
Rodney a landscaper and Gardner owned 3 acres of land near Taree. In 1992 he subdivided
land into 1 large lot which was surrounded by twenty small lots. He sold the small lots to
purchasers. He retained a large portion on which he made a beautiful garden and pathway and
pond and granted a right to purchasers to use the garden and required them to contribute to
the maintenance cost of the garden. Melanie purchased one of the lot in 1992. Rodney has
sold the landscaping and gardening to the developer.
Issue in the case
What are the right to easement available to the parties?
Legal Analysis
Here in the present case the purchasers of the land have an easementory right over the garden.
This right can be some general or specific part of the property. The person who is further
purchasing that garden cannot restrain the purchasers of the lot to use and the beneficial
enjoyment of the easementory right over the property. According to legal terms Easement
means, ‘A legal right to use another’s land for specific purposes’. When someone is granted
an easement over a land or property he gets a legal right to use the property but not the legal
title over that property. On selling or purchasing of that property over which the easementory
right is available the easement right exists for the public who is using that right1. The right of
easement is given only in some certain circumstance which is based on the consent of the
owner.
Case Laws
In the given case of Regency Villas Title Ltd V. Diamond Resort (Europe) Ltd (2017) EWCA
Civ 238. It was held that the question arose whether the facilities attached to the mention
inside or outside like swimming pool, golf course, tennis courts, squash courts and indoor
facilities were capable of existing easement2. It was held that apart from indoor facilities
1 ("Real Property. Easements. Implied Grant Of Right Of Way Corresponding To
Previous Quasi-Easement" 56)
2 Regency Villas Title Ltd V. Diamond Resort (Europe) Ltd (2017) EWCA Civ 238

these facilities did take effect as easement and not invalid merely on the ground that it is for
amusement or recreation3. This case law gave the clear justification on the right to easement.
Conclusion
Here in this case, right to use the garden is the easementory right of the purchasers of the lot.
The person who purchases the garden or landscaping can refrain them to use the garden as his
easementory right which is a legal right. Now, the crux of this case is that the purchaser could
refrain others to use the garden as his right to easement.
Answer to Question number 2
Facts of the case
In this case, the issue is related to a Caveat registered on the title of the stock purchased and
contract entered into the purchaser and seller. It was found that the title search in the Contract
shows a Caveat registered on the title4. When you send requisitions to the vendor’s
conveyancer, Michael, he gave the notice of Rescission due to the purchaser’s failure to
waive the requisition. In this case, it was found that party to the vendor agreement or
contract must exercise the right of recession reasonably and in good faith and not
capriciously. Nevertheless, if Michael should have send the notice of the rescission to
Stephen5.
Issue in this case
Whether the party to the vendor purchase agreement or contract is liable to rescind the
contract on any terms?
What would be the condition to rescind the contract by the purchaser ?
Case Laws
In the case given, State Trading Corp of India v M Golodetz Ltd [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 277 it
is found that when vendor wants to rescind the contract then he needs to send prior notice of
3 Roscoe, Edward Stanley. A Digest Of The Law Relating To The Easement Of Light.
London: Stevens and Sons, 2011. Print.
4 Northern Foods Plc v Focal Foods Ltd [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 728
5 8 State Trading Corp of India v M Golodetz Ltd [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 277

rescission in the given time. In this case, Stephen did not get any notice prior for the
rescission of the contract6. However, in this case, Stephen proper reply to requisitions send by
him to Michael but due to some issues Michael fails to communicate the same. In this case,
Michael cannot rescind the contract without giving prior notice to Stephen as per the contract
law In the case law of Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183, it is was given that rescission
involves the termination of a contract in a way that unravels it. It has the effect of treating a
contract which did exist and may have been performed in part or full as having, with the
benefit of hindsight, had no real or substantive existence7.
Conclusion
After assessing the cases and applicable law, it could be inferred that Michael cannot rescind
the contract without giving prior notice to Stephen as per the contract law. If the contract is
rescind then the Michael would be liable to bring the contract again into the existence. He is
liable to perform the contract undertaken with the Stephen. However, in case, if after
assessing the case, it was found that the there was a proper reply from the Michael and he
gave proper reply to requisition then in this case, rescind of the contract by Michel would be
authorised to rescind the contract. Nonetheless, in this case, it was clearly mentioned that
Michel did not give proper reply to any of the requisition and Stephen consistently asked for
the same. In this case, the case will be in the favour of the Stephen and he may ask for
performance of the vendor purchase agreement by the Michael.
Answer to Question number 3
“The Conveyance (Sale of Land) regulation 2017 gives protection to a purchaser by allowing
the purchaser to cancel an exchanged contract if the purchaser discovers that there is any
matter which will impact on the purchaser’s enjoyment of the property8”.
In this statement the word ‘exchange’ means the representatives of seller prepare two
identical contracts in which one is to be signed by seller and other to be signed by the
purchaser. Exchange is the process where the contracts are swapped over or exchanged, dated
and then each party holds the contract which is signed by the other. It is the situation when
purchaser has a legally binding contract.
6 State Trading Corp of India v M Golodetz Ltd [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 277
7 Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183
8 Futuyma, Douglas J, and Mark Kirkpatrick. Evolution. Print.

This regulation prescribes some remedies to the purchaser under part 5 of this regulation
under which it the purchaser can rescind the contract. The purchaser can rescind the contract
under clause 3 of the regulation if he is satisfied that:
(a) If he finds out that there are some facts which are not disclosed to him at the time of entering
into the contract which can affect the land.
(b) The purchaser was unaware of the facts which was exist in the contract.
(c) Failure on the part of the vendor to attach prescribe documents
(d) On the breach of vendor’s prescribed warranty.
This clause is for the protection of the purchaser form any fraudulent act or any undisclosed
fact about the purchase of the land. The purchaser can rescind the contract by giving the
notice in writing to the vendor. The purchaser can get refund which he has deposited if he has
rescinds the contract. This rescission of contract does not render the vendor or purchaser
liable to pay any damages, expenses or cost not even any reimbursement of the purchaser for
any expenses incurred by the purchaser9.
Case Law
In the given case of Green v. Sommerville (1979) 141 CLR 594 at 609, it was given that the
remedies were given to the purchase for the delay in the completion of the contract by the
seller10. If in case, seller fails to perform his action then the purchaser could ask for the
specific performance to undertaken contract condition.
Answer to Question number 4
Facts of the case
Here in this case, Molly has lived on her property on the riverfront at Grafton for 18 years.
On the purchase of property she got to know that her neighbour has right of way down the
side of the property to the river. In the time she was living she never seen anybody using the
right of way and by the time that way was overgrown with trees, shrubs and weeds. Molly’s
9 Reid v Rigby and Co [1894] 2 Q.B. 40, QBD
10 Green v. Sommerville (1979) 141 CLR 594 at 609,

neighbour were living there for about 30 years and were disabled and uses wheelchair. Molly
being a ceramic artist built a studio near the river which was partly across the right of way.
Issue in the case
What is the right of way and when right of way expires?
What are the legal issues involved in the right of way between the parties?
Legal Analysis
In the present case the right of way was not in use for so many time but by this condition it
cannot be extinguished by the owner. The non-use of the right of way does not expires the
right over that path or property. The right of way can only be expires when it is abandoned.
When the original character of the land of the dominant is changed to that extent that it is not
possible or unnecessary to exercise the right of way. To extinguish the right of way it is
necessary for both the parties who are dominant and servient to express it on a deed. Because
once the right of way is extinguished it cannot be revived back11.
Case Law
In the given case of Benn V. Hardinge (1992) 60 P&CR 246, it was held by the parties to the
dispute that right of way should be vanished if the right of way is not being used for over 175
years. However, court held that if the right of way is not being used for over 175 years then it
is not enough condition to indicate an intention to abandon the right of way12.
Conclusion
So according to legal analysis and legislative assumption, Molly cannot extinguish the right
of way of its neighbour on mere assumption that they were not using the right for so long
time.
11 Tushnet, M., Comparative constitutional law. In The Oxford handbook of
comparative law. 2017
12 Benn V. Hardinge (1992) 60 P&CR 246