To the first paragraph that they worked as partners

To start we must look at the relationship between
Fraser and Maya. It is clearly stated in the first paragraph that they worked
as partners on building sites.

Fraser buys property and it is registered in the names
of both himself and Maya without restriction. What need to be addressed is how
the land is being held. Whether this is a joint tenancy or tenancy in common.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Based on their commercial history and being partners in the same business,
there would be no reason to see this as not a commercial context as they
planned to build a grand designs home. In the commercial context, the courts
would see this holding of property as the only reasonable way as a tenancy in
common.

 

Based on the decision in Marr v Collie that a joint
tenancy is most possible in this case. In Marr v Collie,

 

Stack v Dowden can
be applied in these circumstances cannot be founded; although the contexts
share some similarity the actual result is a business relation here and doing
such the application for Stack v Dowden
could be raised. Marr v Collie similarly
follows that the purchase of property was made by one party but shared between
the two partners. Fraser and Maya have a similar business relationship and
although Fraser contributes to the purchase of the bungalow, the registration
of the property is done in both names, these actions can speak for themselves
in that it looked like another investment, as per Marr v Collie. The Court of Appeal ruled that where one party makes
the sole contribution to the purchase of property the ownership and
registration in the joint names clearly emphasises the intention of beneficial
interest. The Court of Appeal also decided in this case that the rule in Stack v Dowden does not only apply to
domestic context.

It is unfair based on the decision in Lake
v Craddock (1732) 3 P Wms 158 to impose survivorship in the course of
business dealings.

 

In Stack v Dowden Lady Hale established “Equity
follows the law” the equitable interest in this case would most reasonably be

 

Tenancy in commons operate in the undivided shares
between owners, most notably they base the shares on the contribution of the
purchase price.

 

Jordy is the sole executor and sole beneficiary of
Frasers last will. The claim to the site is unfounded. we have examined that
the ownership of the property was questionable but the evidence and precedents in
this case support a joint tenancy. For this argument, we focused on the joint
tenancy aspect of this as doing such provides no entitlement to the site for
Jordy. The will made does not have any basis as the site was held in joint
names and this was a joint tenancy.  There was no share of the site to be given
away by Fraser to start. Jordy may have entitlement to other properties but for
this instance the site

 

Marr v Collie had an agreement between them that one
would buy the property while the other would renovate the properties for let. Similarly
we see in Fraser and Maya that they were building partners who worked on building
sites together. The application for a grand designs home, could represent that
they had a similar agreement to Marr v collie Unfortunately the facts do not
strictly follow this one so closely. If it can be shown in previous dealings
that this is how Fraser and Maya conducted business then the courts could look
to Marr v Collie and Stack v Dowden for support in this as Joint Tenancy. We
are not given information to the previous dealings between the two, that is what’s
missing and is important to the courts to find the intentions into purchasing
and registering the title in their names.

x

Hi!
I'm Homer!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out