Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter


    Post the relevant bit of the question instead of paraphrasing it.

    You've described it as a loan but then go on to discuss an arrangement which is not a loan, but some bizarre kind of future sale of part (which part?) of an estate, with the obligation to convey the relevant part arising only if the owner decides to sell the whole estate.

    There are some vague hints that 'L' might have acquired a pre-emption right or an option but unless you have mangled the explanation of the facts badly, it isn't either of those.

    (Original post by jaaackk_0)
    Last year, A estate got into difficulties and B, agreed to lend him a sum of money to help him out. He lent him the money on condition that he could have a share of the farm if it was sold.

    Notwithstanding the loan, A's business continued to struggle and he has now decided to sell the estate to a neighbour, C.
    Okay that doesn't get anywhere near being an interest in land imo.

    First, the agreement is too uncertain to have any contractual effect. Neither party has attempted to define what share of A's farm B will be entitled to if the estate is sold. Second, A's representation that B can have a share of the farm is insufficiently clear, in my opinion, to found a proprietary estoppel (although B's lending money at what appears to be 0% interest could arguably be a detriment to him).

    i) The purported interest is too uncertain to found a valid contract. The parties have not attempted to describe what share of the farm B is to have if A sells

    ii) Even if it wasn't too uncertain, there is no evidence that the parties have entered into signed writing which sets out all of the terms, so that the contract would anyway be void for non-compliance with s 2 LP(MP)A 1989;

    iii) {If you then want to move on to to discuss the enforceability against C, you are going to have to speculate what the right would be if it was sufficiently certain and was reduced to writing. I have no idea, it's certainly nothing like any right I have ever seen. But whatever you decide it is, you can explain what the registration requirements are - if A's farm is registered - or what the requirements would be for that right to bind C if A's farm is unregistered}. At this point you are far off in fantasy land in my opinion.

    iv) The question doesn't actually ask if the right binds C, so you might discuss what B's other remedies might be - e.g. could he get an injunction to prevent A selling in breach of the agreement.

    v) In any event B is entitled to repayment of his loan but that has nothing to do with land law.

    vi) Does A's statement that B will get a share of the land on sale meet the threshold to be an 'assurance' or 'representation' for the purposes of proprietary estoppel? That is less onerous than the test of contractual certainty (but in my opinion A's statement is a long way short).

    vii) Did B when entering into the loan rely on A's statement to his detriment?

    viii) Would it be unconscionable for A to resile from his assurance?

    If the answers to (vi) - (viii) are all yes, then (ix), does B's equity bind C?
The home of Results and Clearing


people online now


students helped last year

University open days

  1. London Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 18 Aug '18
  2. Edge Hill University
    All Faculties Undergraduate
    Sat, 18 Aug '18
  3. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 18 Aug '18
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.