LAND LAW II Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

LAND LAW II - Essay ExampleThese exceptions include (a) An procedure of generosity (Helsop v Burns, which you already mentioned it) (b)Service Occupancy (Crane v Morris) (c) Occupancy by virtue of office (d) Occypancy preceding to completion of contract of sale Indeed, by definition, the genuinely first requirement for a lease is sole(prenominal) possession. Without an scoop possession, there is no way a lease can be finalized. This is so because the easy lay possession taken by the soulfulness taking the lease, and hereby known as the inhabit gives that somebody the right to exclude all people from the property in question. Such exclusion does not scarcely involve third parties and people outside the transfer transaction but also includes the landlord and all agents of the landlord. This underlining intelligent phenomenon notwithstanding, it has been argued in most quarters of statutory practice that an occupier who enjoys pocket possess is not inevitably a tenant (Gray and Grey, 2009, p. 341). A major premise to this argument is given in Street v Mountford 1985. In the case, the court gave a clear judgment to the effect that a persons note of a property could either amount to being a tenant or only a licence. What was rather very relevant in determining tenancy was the content of the agreement and not what the parties acquire to call their agreement. This is in regard to what Lord Templeman stated while giving judgement that an agreement for exclusive possession for a term at a rent creates a lease or tenancy, disregarding of what the parties call it Street v Mountford 1985. Heslop v Burns 1974 is another case that throws some light on the statement that even though a tenant must have exclusive possession, an occupier who enjoys exclusive possession is not necessarily a tenant. In the case, it is seen that in views where there is an act of generosity, charity or friendship, even if exclusive possession occurs, this may not amount to the occupi er becoming a tenant if there are no intentions to create a legal relation. The fact of the case has it that a tight man allows friends to occupy his house for free without rent. This notwithstanding, the friends had exclusive possession and latter the wealthy man died. retardation in principle, it is contested that the presence of exclusive possession is only worth being regarded as a licence if it comes about as a friendly arrangement with no intentions to create legal relations. Indeed, the resembling basis of the principle was held in the judicial hearing, concluding that the arrangement was only a licence. This is a very clear confirmation that as posited by Lord Templeman, an exclusive possession is not always bear on to a tenancy. In another case, of Rhodes v Dalby 1971, a premise is given to the effect that a person may have occupancy with exclusive possession but may not necessarily be a tenant. The fact of that case has it that a man who was travelling abroad asked a f riend to embody in his bungalow whiles he was away. Between the two parties, what existed was a gentlemans agreement, guild the friend to be taking care of the property and keeping it in shape. In the situation, and in situation of this nature, because the owner of the property leaves the property