Case Of Prudential Assurance V London Residuary Body

The core of business activity is to gain profit. As these profits are earned form ordinary business activities, the profits are categorised as ordinary income for the business. However, there are some cases and scenarios where the business activity may include courses of actions that are not usual for the business nature. Here, we tried to find the consistency of ordinary income and the proceeds from these unusual business decisions.

However, there are a few ways owners can limit their ownership. The first way is to grant an easement to someone to use part of the land for a specified purpose, for example, if an electric company needs to install cables on someone’s property the landowner can grant them an easement. Granting an easement does not deprive the owner of their property, it simply allows a part of the land to be used for a specific purpose. An easement that grants the right to do something is an affirmative easement, in contrast a negative easement would require a landowner to refrain from certain actions. For example, the owner could not increase the height of their dwelling as it would block the light from entering the holder of the negative easements property. Easements are not permanent, they may be terminated by a written agreement between the property owner and the easement holder. Licenses are similar to easements in that they grant permission to use the property in a specific way. The main difference between licenses and easements are that licenses are revocable by the granter at any time and may be granted orally. Finally, there are covenants which are promises made by the landowner with respect to the use of their land. Like easements, there are positive and negative covenants. Positive covenants involve promising to do something, such as paying homeowner association dues and negative covenants are promises to refrain from something, such as housing a business on the

Case Note: Lockwood Buildings Ltd v Trust Bank Canterbury Ltd I Introduction The Court of Appeal (CA) decision in Lockwood Buildings Ltd v Trust Bank Canterbury Ltd (Lockwood) marks a notable development in the law on personal property. It changes the ground rules for determining when a chattel becomes a fixture. CA up held the High Court decision and applied Holland v Hodgson two limbs approach of intention and degree of annexation, but modified the intention test. That is to find out the purpose of annexation, not from speaking to the parties but by objective observation of an article - “patent to all to see”.

Throughout American history, the definition, allocation and protection of property rights has been one of the most controversial and combative issues. According to Armen and Demsetz (1973), “…a private property right includes the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price). If person A is not allowed to buy some rights from Person B and Person B therefore is not allowed to

In this case restrictions are only placed on rentals shorter than 30 days and requires the owner to reside in the house. Even with the limitations placed on Ms. Wilde the property still has value, such as selling the property or renting it longer than 30 days at a time. Justice Blackmun in dissenting in the Lucas case, states the “petitioner still can enjoy other attributes of ownership, such as the right to exclude others” (Lucas 1237). Because the property still has economic productivity, albeit with some regulation the ordinance does not invoke a taking.

Shafer, 374 Md. 317, 822 A.2d 423 (2003), Village Green Mutual Homes v. Randolph, 361 Md. 179, (2000), as well as any statutory authority.” McDaniel v. Baranowski, 419 Md. 560, 574 (2011). Consistent with Maryland authorities regarding the definition of a landlord, the Restatement (Second) of Property: Landlord and Tenant provides that “[a] landlord-tenant relationship exists only if the landlord transfers the right to possession of the leased property.” Restatement (Second) of Property: Landlord & Tenant § 1.2 (1997) (emphasis added). Indeed:

Tenure is classed as ‘The legal relationship between the resident and the home they inhabit’.

The history of adverse possession can be traced back to the 12th century. During this time, a squatter could prove his right to ownership of property by the act of possession. Gradually, the law has been seen to favour the squatters as opposed to the landowners. The law required that the squatter had proof that he had dispossessed the property exclusively for 60 years in order to bar a landlord’s actions. There were further developments in the Statute of Limitations restricting other rights of the landlord in 1639. A landlord’s title would expire after a squatter had dispossessed a property for 20 years exclusively. Further amendments reduced the required time period from 20 to 12 years of exclusive dispossession.

The landlords and the tenants hold opposing views about it. For the landlords, their land is merely a means of earning income. Land is nothing than an investment for them. On the other hand, the land is a crucial part of the tenants existence, and each aspect of their life is attached to it. The tenants believed that all people should have the opportunity to own landed property. This idea is reflected in the tenants' reply: "We measured it and broke it up. . . that's what makes it ours--being born on it, working it, dying on it. That makes ownership, not a paper with numbers on

Real property rights do in fact serve two valuable goals. First, they prevent rivalrous uses by multiple claimants to a particular piece of property and therefore avoid the tragedy of the commons. Second they allow their owners to invest in improving or developing the property (Lemley, 2005).

The landlord is required to provide full possession of the agreed premises, assurance that the property is tenantable, maintenance of the property, and the implied covenant of peaceful enjoyment. The covenant of peaceful enjoyment simply means that the “landlord must not interfere with the tenants right of use and enjoyment of the rental property” (Kubasek, N. 2011, pg.1107). The tenant in turn is required to provide the landlord with payment of rent for the property based on the lease agreement and a duty not to commit waste. Waste is a permanent or considerable damage to the property. A residential lease agreement can also have certain addendums attached that outline how the tenant may use the property, such as specific parking, subletting, or operation of a

The ‘bundle of rights’ metaphor is mentioned regularly in property law cases. It is a useful way to explain property rights in general. However, it does not prove to be as useful in forming an accurate concept of native title rights. ‘Bundle of rights’ was a metaphor used by many courts during native title land claims such as that of Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1. The metaphor is used in a useful way to assist the Crown in using its power to extinguish native title rights.

In Lewisham Borough Council v Roberts[10], a case concerning delegation of power of requisition, Lord Denning affirmed that the Council ”cannot grant a lease or create any legal interest in the land…because it has itself no estate in the land out of which to carve any interest.” More recently, Neuberger J. in Re Friends Provident Life Office[11] reassured “a lease involves not only a contract, but also an estate in land”[12]. Therefore, the traditional concepts are long-standing principle and the possibility of leases existing merely in contractual nature and granting “tenant” merely contractual rights are denied by courts.

A lease involves a grant of the right of exclusive possession for a certain period of time as per Radaich v Smith where it was held that whether the transaction creates a lease or licence depends on the intention of the parties regarding what relationship the lessee shall have to the land. It does not matter whether the terms ‘licensee’ or ‘tenant’ are used, as it is a matter of substance rather than form. In the present case, there is an agreement that states the duration of the tenancy as being one year and the rent as $1000 per month. Thus certainty of duration is clearly stated. It is therefore a matter of whether the right of exclusive possession has been granted. Here the tenant is entitled to uninterrupted possession for the full

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.