Note are laid out in a very easy-to-follow manner. The major components of each topic are separated into bolded bullet points with further subdivided bullet points within each component.
All cases are set out in the same logical structure; separated into 'facts', 'issue', and 'judgment.'...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Property Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Sale of Land on Conditional Contract
Conditional Contracts
Allows party to get out of contract if a certain condition occurs (condition subsequent) e.g. purchaser can exit if builder’s report comes back too negative, vendor can exit if they don’t sell the house, one the parties needs consent from a third party.
Question raised - does equitable interest pass with signing of conditional contract?
Bevin v Smith
Facts
Bevin selling his land to Smith
A paper road (legally recognised but undeveloped) went through Bevin’s land - Bevin had license to occupy
Smith was unaware of this road
Signed a contract that was conditional on Smith getting consent of the Land Valuation Tribunal
After contract had been signed, Bevin bought the paper road and became registered owner - refused to sell it to Smith
Issue
Had Smith gained equitable interest under this conditional contract? (which would impose duties on B and allow S to protect interest)
If Bevin owed fiduciary duties, they would extend to not taking advantage of the fact he has acquired the paper road
Judgement
NZ authority - equitable interest only passes if there was availability for specific performance (which only occurs under unconditional contracts)
Not directly relevant NZ cases to support equitable title passing
Australia becoming looser on this rule
Nicolson v Fowler (1981 NZ case) - if a purchaser could waive the condition (because it was solely for their benefit) they would be able to seek specific performance - and therefore they would get equitable title (but facts not the same as this case)
English authorities stated that conditional contracts did transfer equitable interest where vendor had placed fulfilment of contract outside their control i.e. required consent of third party
Policy Considerations - equitable interest no passing is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons (B’s behaviour wrong and law should be fair)
Many NZ contracts are already conditional upon consent of statutory board, and even unconditional contracts are technically conditional on purchaser paying money - would be absurd this didn’t transfer equitable interest
This situation very similar to an option to purchase were purchaser acquires an immediate equitable interest capable of supporting a caveat (shouldn’t present facts give the same rights?)
It would be unsatisfactory in a purchaser in the position of the Smiths could not protect their position by way of a caveat and instead had to rely on the injunction procedure
Therefore, Smiths did have sufficient interest in the land to support a caveat and to impose fiduciary obligations on the vendor continuing in possession
Caveat of the Judgement
The issue of whether equitable interest has passed must always depend on the terms of the contract itself
Equity must consider the nature of the contract and the practical conditions of the parties
So there will be certain difference factual situations where equitable interest does not pass under a conditional contract
Equitable interest will not pass on contracts with condition precedent
After Bevin v Smith ruling
Need to determine the borderline between contracts that simply remain contracts, and those which create property right (which bind third parties and allow person to caveat property)
This can be done by examining the express terms and nature of contract
A condition that required consent of third part is enough (Bevin)
A condition that could be waived by purchaser (because it is for their benefit) is also enough (Nicolson v Fowler)
If the contract is subject to condition precedent, it is not enough
Option to Purchase
An agreement that if purchaser calls upon vendor on or before a certain date, vendor will transfer the specified property of specified terms
Usually there is a specified time period
Does create an immediate equitable interest - because P has all the control
Right of Pre-emption/Right of First Refusal
An agreement that if one party decides to sell a specified property that they own,...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Property Law Notes.
Note are laid out in a very easy-to-follow manner. The major components of each topic are separated into bolded bullet points with further subdivided bullet points within each component.
All cases are set out in the same logical structure; separated into 'facts', 'issue', and 'judgment.'...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started