Judgement for the case Hunt v Luck
Table Of Contents
G had fraudulently got Plaintiff to hand over some property to him, which G later mortgaged to Defendant.
Plaintiff claimed that the transaction was void since Plaintiff’s consent was vitiated.
CA found that Defendant was not given actual or constructive (i.e. presumed) notice of Plaintiff’s lack of consent and therefore Defendant’s title was good.
Vaughan Williams LJ
If a purchaser or a mortgagee has notice that the vendor or mortgagor is not in possession of the property, he must make inquiries of the person in possession - of the tenant who is in possession - and find out from him what his rights are, and, if he does not choose to do that, then whatever title he acquires as purchaser or mortgagee will be subject to the title or right of the tenant in possession.
For Further Study on Hunt v Luck
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Land Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.