A father granted to his son, P, a 10-year option to purchase his farm at a set price. Through the default of the P's solicitors the option was not registered as a Class C(iv) estate contract. D later conveyed the farm in 1967 to his wife, D at a vastly deflated cost so as to prevent P, with whom he had had an argument, from exercising his right. HL held that D was a purchaser within the meaning of the Land Registration Act and, following s.2 of the act, the charge was void against D. It denied that there was a BF requirement or a requirement that the purchaser provide adequate consideration. Wilberforce points out not only that BF is not required under the act, but also that to include it would produce immense difficulties e.g. examination of the buyer’s and seller’s motives.
