Defendant bought a property from X at a discounted price on the grounds that X would have a lease for life.
Defendant then got a mortgage from Plaintiff (without X’s knowledge) and defaulted. Defendant had fraudulently told Plaintiff that the property was vacant and Plaintiff had inspected it and come to that conclusion.
Plaintiff sued Defendant and X for possession.
CA held that since X did have a lease (exclusive possession etc made out), Plaintiff could not succeed against X.
Where A is the legal owner and gets a mortgage loan from B, and C, who has a beneficial interest, gives C reasonable grounds for believing that he consents, C is estopped from claiming a beneficial interest that overrides that of the mortgagee. See Henning and Cann.
However, here there was no consent.
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 StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Land Law | Leases Notes (77 pages) |