Property Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Property Law - Essay Example 4. On this account, Leo gave Sonya a cheque of ? 100,000 on his own current account and a note saying that his share of the house was hers. He gave Sharon the key to a tin box under his bed saying that the contents were for her. He gave Ben his accounts business card telling him to contact the accountant who had his entire share certificate so that he should get ownership of them, selling them and thereafter give the proceeds in equal shares to Sharon and Sonya. 5. Leos tin contained a cheque for winnings from national lotto, a set of keys to his villa in Argentina, s set of keys to his car and a bag of Argentinian money. 6. Leo recovered from his illness, however on leaving the door for his first walk, part of the roof fell on him and killed him. 7. Ben sold the shares and used the proceeds for a holiday. The Law: In particular, I rely upon the following laws and case laws. 1. Re Craven Estates (No 1) (1937) I Ch 423, HC 2. Re Beaumont (1902) 1 CH 889 3. Cain vs. Moon (1896) 2QB 283 4. Wilkes vs. Allington (1931) 2 CH 104 5. Birch vs. Treasury Solicitor (1950) 2 All ER 1198 6. Re Lilingstone Deceased (1952) All ER 184 7. Woodard vs. Woodard (1991) The Times, 18th March CA. 8. Sen vs. Headley, (1991) CH 425 9. Stock Transfer Act of 1963 10. The Wills Act of 1837 11. Agnew vs. Belfast Banking Co. (1896) 2 IR 204 12. Re Dudman (1925) 1 CH 553 Donatio Mortis Causa: 1. The gifts under this case are known as donation mortis causa. These gifts are conditional and possession take place after the death of the donor.The Wills Act of 1837 allows the issuance of such gifts.Farley (2002) notes that in the case of Re Craven Estates, the court held that a person is not allowed to dispose of his property after death under British laws but an exemption is provided for by the Wills Act of 1837 (p.45). But this principle of donation mortis causa is an exemption as provided by the same act of 1837. 2. In Re Beaumont, the court held that Donatio Mortis Causa is a singular form of gift and is amphibious nature. It is neither inter vivos nor testamentary and the recipient is entitled to the gift after the donor dies (Jackson, 1972). 3. Keeton (1968) by using the case of Cain v Moon observes that for a gift under donation mortis causa to be valid it must satisfy the following conditions, the gifts must be made in contemplation of death and not necessarily expectation (p.61). The recipient must receive the subject matter of the gift and there must be a condition that the gift reverts back to the donor in case he recovers. 4. The validity of donation mortis causa does not depend on whether the donor died of the anticipated cause, but on whether the donor actually died. In Wilkes vs. Allington, it was held that the most important issue in DMC is whether the donor actually died (Fitzgerald and Muncie, 1983). 5. Harrison (1965) observes that if a title does not pass by delivery, a DMC can be valid if there is evidence of possession of title or property which entitle s the possessor to the property given, and he cites the case of Birch v treasury solicitor, where the court held that if the gift in question is bulky, the handling to the recipient a means of accessing the gift, i.e. the key is symbolic enough to constitute delivery (p.36). THE CASE: 1. The first issue noted in the gifts given to Sonya, Sharon