Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
If you would like to view other samples of the academic work produced by our writers, please click here.
Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green (No. 1)  A.C. 513
UNREGISTERED OPTION – ESTATE CONTRACT – LAND CHARGES – UNREGISTERED CONVEYANCING
For the consideration of £1, W granted G the option to buy a farm, title to which was unregistered. This was an estate contract and so a legal charge, registrable under the Land Charges Act 1925 (LCA) although G did not do so. Several years later, when the property was worth £40,000, W conveyed it to his wife E for £500. A month after that G registered the option, subsequently giving notice of his intent to exercising it. G sought a declaration that the option was still binding and sued for specific performance of the contract. He failed at first instance on the basis that the sale to E had been a genuine sale by a vendor to a purchaser, defined by s.13(2) LCA as being “for money or money’s worth”. G was successful on appeal and E’s estate themselves appealed to the House of Lords.
Whether, in order to be a valid sale of unregistered land for “money or money’s worth” within the meaning of s.13(2) LCA, a transaction must be in good faith and for consideration which was more than nominal.
The House of Lords, allowing the appeal, found that there was no requirement in s.13(3) that the purchaser should be in good faith; the word “purchaser” in s.13(2), by definition, meant one who had provided valuable consideration, a legal term of art which did not connote adequacy. There was no clause in the Land Charges Act 1925 equivalent to s.205(1)(xxi) of the Land Registration Act 1925. To exclude a nominal sum of money from s.13(2), therefore, would be to rewrite the section entirely.
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please: