{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

LAW316 Class Presentation Hand-In

LAW316 Class Presentation Hand-In - Anish Wilson 41476387...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Anish Wilson - 41476387 CIRCUMSTANCES RESULTING IN DEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE FOR FRAUD Also important to remember that it is actual fraud that is required – ‘dishonesty and moral turpitude’. 1. FAILURE TO UPHOLD AN EXPRESS ASSURANCE o Loke Yew v Port Swettenham Rubber Co. [1913] AC 491: Port Swettenham bought land from a registered proprietor and before the sale, had agreed that they would not disturb the occupation of Loke Yew after becoming registered. However, after the sale, Port Swettenham acted against this assurance and sought to remove Loke Yew from the land. It was held in this case that where a registered proprietor fails to uphold an express assurance made prior to registration, it constituted actual fraud, and the title is therefore defeasible. 2. FAILURE TO UPHOLD AN EXPRESS ASSURANCE MADE BY PREVIOUS PROPRIETORS o Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604: The Bahrs sold their land to Nicolay. It was agreed prior to registration that Nicolay
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}