At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must usually show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.
A hire purchase (HP), known as installment plan in North America, is an arrangement whereby a customer agrees to a contract to acquire an asset by paying an initial installment and repays the balance of the price of the asset plus interest over a period of time. Other analogous practices are described as closed-end leasing or rent to own.
A concurrent estate or co-tenancy is a concept in property law which describes the various ways in which property is owned by more than one person at a time. If more than one person owns the same property, they are commonly referred to as co-owners. Legal terminology for co-owners of real estate is either co-tenants or joint tenants, with the latter phrase signifying a right of survivorship. Most common law jurisdictions recognize tenancies in common and joint tenancies, and some also recognize tenancies by the entirety, which is a joint tenancy between married persons. Many jurisdictions refer to a joint tenancy as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, but they are the same, as every joint tenancy includes a right of survivorship. In contrast, a tenancy in common does not include a right of survivorship.
Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.
A partition is a term used in the law of real property to describe an act, by a court order or otherwise, to divide up a concurrent estate into separate portions representing the proportionate interests of the owners of property. It is sometimes described as a forced sale. Under the common law, any owner of property who owns an undivided concurrent interest in land can seek such a division. In some cases, the parties agree to a specific division of the land; if they are unable to do so, the court will determine an appropriate division. A sole owner, or several owners, of a piece of land may partition their land by entering a deed poll.
A constructive trust is an equitable remedy resembling a trust imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference.
A land contract — often described by other terminology listed below — is a contract between the buyer and seller of real property in which the seller provides the buyer financing in the purchase, and the buyer repays the resulting loan in installments. Under a land contract, the seller retains the legal title to the property, while permitting the buyer to take possession of it for most purposes other than legal ownership. The sale price is typically paid in periodic installments, often with a balloon payment at the end to make the timelength of payments shorter than in the corresponding fully amortized loan. When the full purchase price has been paid including any interest, the seller is obligated to convey legal title to the property. An initial down payment from the buyer to the seller is usually also required.
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 is a leading English property law case from the House of Lords case concerning the division of interests in family property after the breakdown of a cohabitation relationship.
Avegno v. Schmidt, 113 U.S. 293 (1885), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that title to property confiscated during the American Civil War was properly held by the mortgagor.
Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset[1990] UKHL 14 is an English land law, trusts law and matrimonial law case. It specifically deals with the translation into money of physical contributions from a cohabitee or spouse, under which its principles have been largely superseded.
Grant v Edwards was an English Court of Appeal case on common intention constructive trusts.
Bristol & West Building Society v Henning [1985] EWCA Civ 6 is an English land law case that holds a person can consent to give up the right to an overriding interest in land, that will bind third parties, such as banks, that purchase a property. Although dealing with unregistered land, it is equally applicable in the case of registered land and now falls under the Land Registration Act 2002.
Fleitas v. Richardson, 147 U.S. 550 (1893), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under the Louisiana Code, the liability of the husband to the wife for her separate property received by him under the marriage contract is in the nature of a debt secured by mortgage of his lands, and may be enforced by her by direct suit against him. It may also be extinguished by his discharge in bankruptcy.
Le Riche v Hamman, an important case in South African contract law, was heard in the Appellate Division in 1946, with Watermeyer CJ, Tindall JA and Greenberg JA presiding.
Midland Bank plc v Cooke [1995] is an English land law case, concerning constructive trusts; and at first instance proven undue influence in law as to a secured business loan and later refinance.
Oxley v Hiscock[2004] EWCA 546 is a widely-reported English land law and family law case, concerning cohabitants' constructive trusts and their quantification in a home's equity value.
Kragga Kamma Estates CC and Another v Flanagan is an important case in the South African law of contract, an appeal from a decision in the South Eastern Cape Local Division by Jansen J. It was heard in the Appellate Division on August 19, 1994, with judgement handed down on September 29. The presiding officers were EM Grosskopf JA, Nestadt JA, Kumleben JA, Howie JA and Nicholas AJA. The appellants' attorneys were Tobie Oosthuizen, Port Elizabeth, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Jankelowitz, Kerbel & Schärges, Port Elizabeth, and Lovius-Block, Bloemfontein. HJ van der Linde appeared for the appellants; JRG Buchanan SC for the respondent.
Louth v Diprose, is an Australian contract law and equity case, in which unconscionable conduct is considered.
Thompson v Foy[2009] EWHC 1076 (Ch) is an English land law case concerning the right of a person with an overriding interest in a home and deals with a family arrangement for a house to be a gift transferring from a mother to a daughter and the trust between the two parties that the daughter would pay the mother her sum to buy out her share of the property.
CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt[1993] UKHL 7 is a decision of the House of Lords relating to undue influence. The decision confirmed that a person did not need to suffer "manifest disadvantage" under a transaction in order to challenge it for actual undue influence.
