Running head: AUSTRALIAN PROPERTY
LAW
Name
Date
Institution
, AUSTRALIAN PROPERTY
Australian Property Law
This paper addresses variousconcepts which are covered under the Australian property law.
a) The legal question in this case is whether Peter, John and Ted must pay the full purchase
price at the settlement of the transaction. It is first to be considered that being partners, the
actions of one of the parties will be legally binding with legal obligations on the rest of the
other parties. In this case, the sixty day contract that was entered by Peter concerning the
warehouse will be binding on the rests of the partners.
However, while the settlement in this case is to be made in two weeks’ time, an unforeseeable
occurrence in the form of a once-in-fifty-years rain flooded and damaged the property. It was
thus unfit for original commercial use. I find that the partners must not pay for the full
purchase price at the settlement of the transaction on two legal reasons. The first reason is
that by destruction of the property, the terms of the contract are to be altered due to the act of
God. This means that while it was out of the control of both parties, the consideration to be
given shall be pegged on the new circumstances that surround the case in question.
b) Paula and Martina are married husband and wife with children. They jointly own the farm
under the doctrine of joint tenancy by virtue of the fact that the farm is jointly owned in both
their names. It is important to note that the most important feature of a joint tenancy is the
right of survivorship. This doctrine means that in the event of the death of one of the joint
tenants, the estate which they jointly own continues to be held by the surviving tenants.
In this case, the will before the JP Court was to the extent that the property passes to each
other, otherwise it should be passed to their children. However, Paul seeks to pass part of the
property to his ex-nuptial child who is unknown to both the wife and the other children who
have been born of the marriage. At this point it is worth emphasizing that if a joint tenant
attempts to leave his interest by way of will to others, the will shall not be successful is it
LAW
Name
Date
Institution
, AUSTRALIAN PROPERTY
Australian Property Law
This paper addresses variousconcepts which are covered under the Australian property law.
a) The legal question in this case is whether Peter, John and Ted must pay the full purchase
price at the settlement of the transaction. It is first to be considered that being partners, the
actions of one of the parties will be legally binding with legal obligations on the rest of the
other parties. In this case, the sixty day contract that was entered by Peter concerning the
warehouse will be binding on the rests of the partners.
However, while the settlement in this case is to be made in two weeks’ time, an unforeseeable
occurrence in the form of a once-in-fifty-years rain flooded and damaged the property. It was
thus unfit for original commercial use. I find that the partners must not pay for the full
purchase price at the settlement of the transaction on two legal reasons. The first reason is
that by destruction of the property, the terms of the contract are to be altered due to the act of
God. This means that while it was out of the control of both parties, the consideration to be
given shall be pegged on the new circumstances that surround the case in question.
b) Paula and Martina are married husband and wife with children. They jointly own the farm
under the doctrine of joint tenancy by virtue of the fact that the farm is jointly owned in both
their names. It is important to note that the most important feature of a joint tenancy is the
right of survivorship. This doctrine means that in the event of the death of one of the joint
tenants, the estate which they jointly own continues to be held by the surviving tenants.
In this case, the will before the JP Court was to the extent that the property passes to each
other, otherwise it should be passed to their children. However, Paul seeks to pass part of the
property to his ex-nuptial child who is unknown to both the wife and the other children who
have been born of the marriage. At this point it is worth emphasizing that if a joint tenant
attempts to leave his interest by way of will to others, the will shall not be successful is it
