Course Hero Logo

Arepersonalwithanyreliefnecessarybelimitedtocontractua

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 45 - 47 out of 185 pages.

are personal with any relief necessary be limited to contractual damages; but when the contract creates an interest inland the rights of the purchaser are equitable until they become legal in the usual way: Kan Wai Chung & Ors v HaiWun Fai & Ors [2016] 1 HKC 278. Until there has been elevation of the contractual rights into proprietary interests,for example where the rights in land have been transferred to the purchaser, in equity or at law, the transaction isregulated by the contract so that general contractual doctrines operate to determine questions such as formation,validity, and discharge. Thus, the principles of mistake, misrepresentation, and illegality are applicable withoutPage 45
We have textbook solutions for you!
/Automotive-Technology-A-Systems-Approach-7th-Edition-9781337794213-711/
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 8 / Exercise 11
Automotive Technology: A Systems Approach
Erjavec/Thompson
Expert Verified
discrimination as to the subject matter, although in the grant of relief the proprietary element may be significant inthat specific performance might be awarded rather than common law damages. Thereafter the contractual principlestend to be merged into the property elements of the transaction, culminating in the purchaser (or lessee or mortgageeor other relevant party) obtaining the proprietary interest contracted for.IllegalityFurther in granting equitable relief, a court may well be disposed to ignore the illegality of the underlyingtransaction and to grant relief by way of an equitable interest in the land, perhaps as a constructive trust. To do this,beguilingly the court is able to use the illegal contract (which should be treated as void) as the basis for theproprietary interest which results; only the ingenuity of equity could produce such decisions: Tinsley v Milligan[1994] 1 AC 340 and Tribe v Tribe [1995] 3 WLR 913.In Tinsley, it was said that if a claimant to an interest in property can recover without needing to plead or rely onan illegality, then his interest in the property will be confirmed by the court if he can show facts leading to arecognised right such as under a common intention constructive trust. In Tinsley, the claimant could show a commonintention on the acquisition of the property and financial contribution. Hence, it was decided that she had anequitable interest under the constructive trust in the property, despite the fact that she had acquired the money tocontribute from an illegal activity. In Tribe, the claimant to reversing a purported gift of property to avoid potentialtax liability was entitled to recover the property because he was said to be have repented before the transaction wasconcluded; even though he was, in fact, not liable for the supposed tax. The Court found it could overlook his

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 185 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
Merry Malcolm John, Wilkinson Robert Michael
Tags
Wind, The Lottery, The Court
We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Automotive Technology: A Systems Approach
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 8 / Exercise 11
Automotive Technology: A Systems Approach
Erjavec/Thompson
Expert Verified

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture